creds_use

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior ('best credential to try (decrypted), or empty if none found') and the 'most recently discovered' selection. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., creds must already be stored), potential side effects, or whether it is a read-only operation beyond the 'get' verb.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every sentence earns its place. The description is compact, front-loaded with purpose, and includes usage guidance, parameter semantics, and return behavior in just a few lines. No fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter meanings, and return value. It could be enhanced by noting that the tool only works if credentials were previously discovered/stored, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: 'host: target host' and 'service: optional service filter e.g. 'ssh'' add meaning beyond the raw schemas. The example for 'service' is helpful, though it could specify accepted formats for 'host'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the most recently discovered credential for a host/service.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like creds_list, creds_store, and creds_delete by focusing on retrieval for a specific host/service. The scope is well-defined.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this before attacking a service to check if we already have valid creds.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools. The parameter explanations add practical guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.