termix_credentials

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does deliver the key traits: 'Read-only' (no mutation risk) and 'Secrets are hidden' (output is redacted). It does not cover permissions, error behavior when credential_id is omitted, or pagination, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: purpose, safety, then the action modes and the id hint. The bare 'action: list | get' line is terse but functional; no sentence is wasted, though the formatting is slightly fragmentary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the read-only/redaction note covers safety. Still, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the get-vs-list parameter contract and the credential_id requirement under-specified for a two-parameter tool.

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 0% and the schema has no enum for 'action', so the description's 'action: list | get' is genuinely additive. However, credential_id is only obliquely explained ('Use the credential id inside a host's data'), which describes where to find an id rather than what the parameter does in get mode.

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 names a specific verb pair ('List or read') and resource ('stored credentials'), so an agent immediately knows the domain. It is distinguishable from siblings like termix_hosts and termix_health by resource, but never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

'action: list | get' implies the two operating modes, and the note about the credential id hints at a workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when 'get' is required over 'list', and no alternatives named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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