duo_list_user_webauthn_credentials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a valuable guarantee that private key material is never returned, but it does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, pagination behavior, or the response shape. The 'List' verb implies read-only, but more explicit behavioral context would be stronger.

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 two focused sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the security guarantee in the second sentence earns its place by adding behavioral value.

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 list tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose and a key security constraint. However, there is no output schema, so the description could usefully explain what the response contains (e.g., credential IDs, names, enrollment dates) beyond the private-key exclusion.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the overall purpose, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the operation: listing WebAuthn credentials enrolled to a user, with helpful clarification of security keys and platform authenticators. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling duo_list_user_u2f_tokens, so while the purpose is clear, sibling distinction is left to the reader.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need a user's enrolled WebAuthn credentials. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as duo_list_user_u2f_tokens, and no exclusions, so the agent must infer when this tool is preferred over siblings.

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