passkey_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not state that the operation is read-only, what the return shape is (list of passkeys/sites), or any scope constraints. It only defines the concept of a passkey, not the tool's behavior.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than ideal compression.

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 trivial zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, a minimal description is tolerable, but it still omits the fact that the result is a collection and that the call is a safe read. A single added clause naming the returned passkeys would make it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the (absent) parameters.

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 conveys the resource (site logins without a password, i.e. passkeys) but is a noun-phrase fragment that never states the action 'list'. It also does not distinguish this tool from the sibling passkey_retire, so an agent must infer that this is the read side of that pair.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as passkey_retire, credential.list, or secret_list. The agent gets context about what passkeys are but no routing guidance for selecting this tool.

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