credential_new

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful multi-step side effect: the daemon generates the password itself, persists it, and types it into the page. However, it omits key behavioral facts — where the text is typed (focused field vs. active page), whether the stored credential is later retrievable via credential.list, and irreversibility.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the scenario label, with no wasted clauses. It is arguably over-terse for a tool with three distinct side effects, but every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action but leaves the agent guessing about the target of the "types it" step and whether a value is returned or must be fetched separately. The absence of annotations means more, not less, explanation was warranted.

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 schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description correctly implies the tool needs no caller-supplied secret because the daemon draws it.

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 names a concrete scenario ("Sign up") and enumerates the three concrete effects: drawing a password, storing it, and typing it. That implicitly separates it from siblings like credential_store (persist a caller-supplied secret) and credential_fill (type an existing secret), though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no when-not-to-use or alternative routing, even though credential_store and credential_fill sit right next to it in the sibling list. "Sign up" vaguely implies the context (an open sign-up form) but nothing tells the agent which of the three credential tools to pick.

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