yubikey-fido-info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves status (read-only), but does not disclose potential behaviors such as error conditions (e.g., if no YubiKey connected), authentication requirements, or side effects. This is minimal information.

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 that front-loads the purpose and key details. Every word contributes value. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing conditions), but overall it is efficient.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It mentions three specific pieces of status information. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or prerequisites, leaving some gaps for an AI agent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the optional 'serial' parameter beyond what the schema already explains. The parameter's description in the schema is adequate, so no deduction is needed, but also no additional value from the tool description.

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 states the tool gets FIDO2 applet status and lists specific data points (PIN set, credentials stored, remaining retries). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('FIDO2 applet status'), and the sibling tools cover different aspects, so it is well-distinguished.

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 usage for checking status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like yubikey-fido-credentials or yubikey-fido-fingerprints. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context.

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