get_password

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a password, implying a read operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects such as authentication requirements, security implications (e.g., if it's stored securely), rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., if the password isn't found). This leaves significant gaps for a tool handling sensitive data.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential action.

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 complexity of handling passwords (sensitive data) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address security behaviors, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for such a tool. The description alone is insufficient for safe and effective use by 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('username' and 'website'), including examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('password for a username'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_2fa_code' or 'get_account_list', which would require mentioning it's specifically for password retrieval rather than other authentication data or account listings.

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 a basic context ('when logging into a website'), but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_2fa_code' for two-factor codes or 'get_account_list' for listing accounts. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.

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