test_credential

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the non-sensitive return but lacks details on side effects, error handling (e.g., if credentials do not exist), or what 'validate their structure' entails.

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 a single concise sentence with the main action and a key differentiator (returns non-sensitive info). No wasted words, though it could benefit from more structure with bullet points.

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 tool with 2 optional params and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It covers the core purpose and return characteristic, but lacks details on edge cases and output format.

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%, so description adds marginal value. It clarifies that omitting 'id' tests all credentials, which is helpful, but otherwise mostly repeats schema descriptions.

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 action ('test'), resource ('credentials in vault'), and function ('validate their structure'). It also notes the non-sensitive return, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_credentials that may expose sensitive data.

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 use for testing credential existence and structure without exposing sensitive info, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., get_credentials, get_credentials_for_service) or when not to use it.

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