List entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: requires an unlocked vault, returns only non-sensitive fields, and supports filters. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but for a read-only listing tool, the disclosure is adequate and goes beyond basic scope.

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 sentences: the first states function and output scope, the second states filters. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. Information is front-loaded and immediately usable.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers return values (titles, usernames, URLs), constraints (unlocked vault, no sensitive data), and filter options. It omits default limit, but that is covered by the schema. For a simple list tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a descriptive comment. The description mentions 'optional search, category and folder filters' which aligns with query, category, and folder params, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Lists entries') and a clear resource ('in an unlocked vault'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_vaults (lists vaults) and get_item (single entry) by focusing on entry listings, and clarifies it returns only titles/usernames/URLs, not passwords, setting it apart from get_password.

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 implies when to use it: after unlocking a vault, for non-sensitive entry listings. It also provides a when-not by explicitly excluding passwords/sensitive values, implicitly steering to other tools. However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly or state exclusions like 'use get_item for details', so it's clear context without full exclusions.

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