list_dns_credentials

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly warns that secrets are not returned and documents the authentication requirement, including the two access paths. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read-only list tool, the provided details are sufficient.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core purpose before the access instructions. The ACCESS sentence is verbose but earns its place because it tells agents how to authenticate and recover from a session failure. No fluff or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description provides what an agent needs: what is listed, what is returned, and how to gain access. The main gap is that 'credential metadata' is not enumerated, but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major omission.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds relevant context about the result type and access requirements.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('stored DNS provider credentials') and scope ('for the authenticated account'). It also clarifies the return type ('credential metadata (not secret values)'), which removes ambiguity and distinguishes it from credential creation/deletion tools.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: to enumerate DNS provider credentials for the current account. It also provides actionable access guidance—setting PROOF_API_KEY or using start_login to open a session. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_dns_providers, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can select it correctly.

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