passkey_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It explicitly states it 'analyzes configs for Claude, Gemini, VS Code, Cursor, OpenCode, Windsurf, Cline, and Zed,' and that it identifies 'secrets secured via passkey' versus 'credentials exposed in plaintext.' It also discloses the return structure. This provides meaningful insight beyond a simple 'status' label, though it does not mention side effects like whether it modifies configs or requires special permissions.

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 first sentence is a crisp summary, followed by a short list of the analyzed tools and a 'Returns:' section. This is well-structured and front-loaded, though the tool list could arguably be condensed without losing value. Overall, every sentence contributes useful information.

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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states the purpose, the scope (which tools are covered), the kind of analysis performed (security of secrets), and the return format. It does not explain use cases or alternatives, but the core functionality is fully covered.

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 description coverage is 100%. Per instructions, the baseline is 4 when there are no parameters. The description adds no parameter details (none exist), and no compensation is needed.

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 starts with 'Show security status of MCP servers across all detected tools,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like passkey_list (list) and passkey_doctor (diagnostics) by focusing on security status rather than general listing or troubleshooting.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention passkey_doctor, passkey_list, or other siblings, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the description of what it does.

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