navvi_creds

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: passwords never leave the container, get refuses password, import file is deleted after, autofill uses xdotool. This exceeds the burden of 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?

Description is somewhat long but well-structured with bullet points for each action. Front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'NEVER' emphasis repeated).

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 credential tool with 9 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers the main actions and key parameter semantics. It does not discuss return values or error handling, but the output schema likely handles return structure. Overall quite complete.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It maps actions to relevant parameters (e.g., generate requires entry and username, length defaults to 24; import requires file_path). However, parameters like username_selector, password_selector, and persona are not explained, leaving gaps.

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 manages credentials in gopass and enumerates five distinct actions (list, get, generate, import, autofill) with specific verbs. It distinguishes itself from sibling browser automation tools by focusing on credential management.

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?

Each action's purpose and recommended use are described: list for showing entries, get for non-secret fields, generate for creating new credentials with password never leaving container, import for bulk, autofill for filling forms. It implies when to use each but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools.

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