yubikey-piv-info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It identifies a read operation but does not state that the tool is non-destructive, requires a connected YubiKey, or any permissions. Missing details like side effects or limitations reduce transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose and specifics efficiently. No filler or redundant information; every word adds value.

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, the description partially compensates by listing key pieces of output (management key type, retries, certificate slots). However, it does not mention the output format (e.g., JSON) or whether additional status fields are included, leaving minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's explanation for the serial parameter, meeting the minimum standard.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('PIV application status'), listing exactly what aspects are retrieved: management key type, PIN/PUK retries, certificate slots in use. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like yubikey-fido-info and yubikey-openpgp-info by targeting the PIV subsystem.

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 context (when you need PIV status) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list.

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