List IT Glue Passwords

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, which covers basic safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the authentication requirement ('Password Access' permission with 403 error consequence), clarifies the default behavior for password values (excluded unless show_password=true), and mentions the return format options. This provides practical implementation guidance that annotations alone don't convey.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose statement, important note, Args, Returns). It's appropriately sized for an 11-parameter tool with important behavioral notes. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, though the Args section could be more concise given the comprehensive schema coverage.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, authentication requirements, filtering options) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers the purpose, authentication prerequisites, parameter overview, return behavior, and format options. The combination of rich annotations and this descriptive text gives the agent everything needed to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all 11 parameters. The description's Args section repeats parameter information without adding significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema. However, it does provide a helpful summary of the filtering capabilities ('optional filtering') and clarifies the show_password behavior in the Returns note, which offers some contextual framing.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('passwords in IT Glue'), making the purpose immediately apparent. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'itglue_get_password' (singular retrieval) and 'itglue_create_password' (creation), establishing its role as a filtered listing operation.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (for listing passwords with filtering) and includes an important prerequisite about 'Password Access' permission. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., 'itglue_get_password' for single password retrieval).

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