Warden MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific Bitwarden operations like creating items, managing attachments, or handling Sends. However, some overlap exists, such as keychain_send_create and keychain_send_create_encoded, which could cause confusion due to similar naming and functionality. Overall, the descriptions help clarify differences, but a few ambiguous pairs remain.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern with a 'keychain_' prefix, such as keychain_create_login, keychain_get_item, and keychain_delete_attachment. This uniformity makes the set predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in style or structure across all 51 tools.
Tool Count2/5
With 51 tools, the count is excessive for a password manager server, leading to potential overwhelm and complexity. While Bitwarden has many features, this many tools suggests over-fragmentation, such as separate tools for getting passwords, usernames, and URIs, which could be consolidated. A more streamlined set would improve usability.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of Bitwarden's functionality, including CRUD operations for items, folders, collections, and Sends, along with utilities like encoding, generation, and status checks. There are no obvious gaps; agents can perform full lifecycle management, from creation to deletion, with support for advanced features like attachments and organization management.
Average 3/5 across 51 of 51 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the tool scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository includes a README.md file.
This repository includes a LICENSE file.
Latest release: v0.1.20
Tools from this server were used 3 times in the last 30 days.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
View server inspector
This server provides 51 tools. View schema
No known security issues or vulnerabilities reported.
Report a security issue
This server has been verified by its author.
View related servers

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
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. 'Create a login item' implies a write/mutation operation, but provides no information about permissions required, whether this requires authentication, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool with 12 parameters that presumably creates sensitive authentication data, this lack of behavioral context is critically inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at just three words. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the cost of informativeness, from a pure structure perspective, it's front-loaded and efficient with every word serving the core message.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (12 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), this description is completely inadequate. For a tool that creates login items with numerous configuration options including URIs, TOTP, attachments, and organizational settings, the description provides none of the necessary context about what's being created, how it should be used, or what to expect as a result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 12 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description 'Create a login item' provides zero information about what any of these parameters mean, their purposes, or how they should be used. The description fails completely to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a login item' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'keychain_create_login'. It doesn't specify what a 'login item' actually is or what resource it creates beyond the obvious. While it distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'keychain_create_card' or 'keychain_create_note' by specifying 'login', it lacks specificity about what constitutes a login item in this system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be used instead of other creation tools (like 'keychain_create_logins' which appears similar), or any context about appropriate use cases. The agent receives zero usage guidance from this description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('create') without any details on permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though its brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It lacks essential details on behavior, parameters, and usage, failing to provide the context needed for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about the 'organizationId' or 'name' parameters, their formats, constraints, or examples. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an organization collection' restates the tool name and title almost verbatim, making it tautological. It specifies the action ('create') and resource ('organization collection'), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'keychain_create_folder' or 'keychain_create_collection' beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'keychain_create_folder' or 'keychain_create_collection', leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Create an identity item' implies a write/mutation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether the creation is permanent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is completely inadequate for a tool that creates sensitive identity data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise with a single four-word sentence. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being severely under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that creates sensitive identity data with 8 parameters (including a complex nested object), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what the tool actually does, how to use it properly, or what to expect from it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't mention the required 'name' parameter or explain the complex 'identity' object structure with 17 sub-properties. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an identity item' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name and title without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't explain what an 'identity item' is in this context or differentiate this tool from sibling creation tools like keychain_create_card or keychain_create_login.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling creation tools (keychain_create_card, keychain_create_login, etc.), there's no indication of what distinguishes an 'identity item' from other item types or when this specific creation tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't mention that this is a write/mutation operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. For a tool that creates sensitive payment card data, this lack of behavioral information is critical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at just four words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, within the scoring framework it earns full points for having zero wasted words and being front-loaded with the essential action. Every word serves a purpose, even if that purpose is minimally fulfilled.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'payment card item' is in this system's context, doesn't cover any parameters, provides no behavioral context, and offers no guidance on usage. The description fails to provide the necessary context for proper tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 13 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't mention any of the 13 parameters by name, explain what 'name' (the only required parameter) should contain, clarify the purpose of optional fields like 'organizationId' or 'collectionIds', or provide examples. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a payment card item' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('payment card item'), but it's vague about what a 'payment card item' entails and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling creation tools like keychain_create_login or keychain_create_note. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the domain (password manager/vault) or how this differs from other item types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools including other creation tools (login, note, folder, etc.) and related tools like keychain_update_item, there's no indication of when this specific card creation tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when other tools might be better suited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation that may return incomplete data. The description adds that this tool retrieves 'json templates,' which suggests it returns structured data formats rather than actual send objects. This clarifies the tool's behavior beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail response format, error conditions, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is technically concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes no words but fails to provide necessary context. The structure is straightforward but lacks front-loading of critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's apparent purpose (retrieving templates for send operations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'send' means in this context, how the templates are used, or what the output looks like (no output schema is provided). With annotations covering safety but not behavioral details, and schema coverage at 0%, the description should do more to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage (no schema descriptions). The description mentions 'send objects' which loosely relates to the 'object' parameter's enum values ('send.text', 'text', 'send.file', 'file'), but it doesn't explain what these values mean, their differences, or how they affect the output. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get json templates for send objects (bw send template)' restates the tool name 'Send Template' and title 'Send Template' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions 'json templates' and 'send objects' but doesn't clearly explain what a 'send object' is or what the templates are used for. The phrase 'bw send template' appears to be jargon without explanation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any of the sibling tools (like keychain_send_create, keychain_send_get, keychain_send_list) that appear related to 'send' operations, nor does it explain how this template retrieval fits into the workflow. No prerequisites, constraints, or use cases are indicated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, error handling (despite 'continueOnError' in schema), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse despite lacking detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex mutation tool with 2 parameters (one highly nested), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or output expectations, leaving critical gaps for agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal value. It hints at 'multiple login items' (mapping to 'items' array) but doesn't explain parameter purposes, constraints, or relationships. The complex nested structure (e.g., 'uris', 'fields') remains undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create multiple login items') and resource ('login items'), which distinguishes it from the singular 'keychain_create_login' sibling. However, it doesn't specify what a 'login item' entails beyond the schema, making it slightly less specific than a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'keychain_create_login' (for single items) or other creation tools. It mentions 'in a single call' but doesn't explain trade-offs or prerequisites, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether this is reversible/destructive, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on success/failure. It's minimally descriptive beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single four-word sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action. While it may be too brief for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'secure note item' is, how it differs from other item types, what parameters are needed, what the tool returns, or any behavioral context. For a creation tool with many parameters, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter semantics whatsoever—it doesn't mention any of the parameters (name, notes, fields, favorite, organizationId, collectionIds, folderId) or explain their purpose, format, or relationships. This leaves most parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a secure note item' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('secure note item'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings (e.g., keychain_create_card, keychain_create_login) beyond specifying it's for 'notes' rather than other item types. It's vague about what a 'secure note item' entails in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for creating different item types (e.g., cards, logins, folders), there's no indication of when a 'secure note' is appropriate versus other item types, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the operation returns 'the updated (redacted) item,' hinting at output behavior and data redaction, but lacks critical details: required permissions, whether the attachment is encrypted/stored, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'redacted' entails. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently uses two sentences. However, the second sentence about return values could be integrated more smoothly, and there's room to add brief usage context without bloating the text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with 4 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details (e.g., side effects, auth needs), and sufficient context for safe invocation. The mention of 'redacted' output is helpful but doesn't compensate for major gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely references parameters ('file (base64)', 'existing item'), without explaining itemId, filename, contentBase64, or reveal. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names, failing to clarify parameter purposes or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Attach a file') and target resource ('to an existing item'), with a specific format requirement ('base64'). It distinguishes from siblings like keychain_delete_attachment by focusing on creation rather than deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'create' tools (e.g., keychain_create_note) beyond the attachment-specific context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., item must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like keychain_get_attachment or keychain_update_item. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions storage as a 'secure note with fields,' hinting at data persistence, but lacks critical behavioral details like authentication requirements, mutation effects (e.g., overwriting existing keys), rate limits, or error handling for a tool that creates sensitive SSH keys.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for a tool that creates sensitive SSH key objects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely references 'fields' without explaining any of the 10 parameters (e.g., what 'name', 'publicKey', or 'collectionIds' mean). This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('SSH key object'), specifying it's stored as a secure note with fields. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keychain_create_login' or 'keychain_create_note' by focusing on SSH keys, but doesn't explicitly contrast with similar creation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling creation tools (e.g., keychain_create_login, keychain_create_note), the description lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation 'readOnlyHint': true indicates this is a safe read operation, which aligns with the description's focus on generation (a creation-like action that doesn't modify existing data). The description adds value by specifying that 'reveal=true' is required to return the generated value, which is a behavioral constraint not covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or how the generation interacts with the system (e.g., whether the password is stored).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—just two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with a key behavioral note. There's no wasted text, though it could benefit from slightly more detail given the complexity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity (14 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (beyond the need for 'reveal'), how parameters affect generation (e.g., 'passphrase' vs. 'length'), or any dependencies. The annotations help with safety, but overall completeness is poor for such a parameter-rich tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 14 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no descriptions for any parameters. The tool description mentions 'reveal' implicitly but doesn't explain its purpose or any other parameters (e.g., 'uppercase', 'length', 'passphrase'). This leaves most parameters undocumented, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a password/passphrase (bw generate).' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('password/passphrase'), and the parenthetical '(bw generate)' provides additional context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this generation tool from sibling tools like 'keychain_generate_username' or 'keychain_encode', which are also generation-related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance: 'Returning the value requires reveal=true.' This indicates a prerequisite for output visibility but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'keychain_generate_username' for usernames or 'keychain_get_password' for retrieving existing passwords). No context on when this generation is appropriate or any exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context with 'by search term', suggesting a lookup based on input, but doesn't disclose details like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'exposed' entails. It doesn't contradict annotations, so no penalty, but adds little beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. However, it's slightly under-specified, as more detail could improve clarity without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and low schema coverage (0%), the description lacks completeness. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., what 'exposed status' includes), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a tool with one parameter and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, it should provide more context to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no param details. The description mentions 'by search term', which hints at the 'term' parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain what the term should be (e.g., username, password, item name) or its format. It adds some meaning but insufficiently compensates for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check exposed status by search term' states a clear verb ('Check') and resource ('exposed status'), but it's vague about what 'exposed status' refers to (e.g., passwords, credentials, data breaches) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'keychain_search_items' or 'keychain_get_item'. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name/title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'keychain_search_items' for broader searches. Usage is implied only by the action 'check exposed status', but no explicit context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with the 'Get' action implying a read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations, such as referencing 'bw get folder', but doesn't detail error handling, permissions, or output format. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with a single sentence, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, the inclusion of 'bw get folder' without explanation adds potential noise, slightly reducing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what is returned (e.g., folder details, contents, or metadata) or any behavioral aspects like error cases. For a tool with one parameter but no schema descriptions, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by id', which clarifies the 'id' parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain what the ID is (e.g., format, source, or constraints). This adds some meaning but is insufficient for full parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Get') and resource ('folder'), but is vague about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve metadata, contents, or details). It references 'bw get folder' which might be a CLI command, but this is not explained. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keychain_list_folders' by focusing on a single folder, but the purpose could be more specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use 'keychain_get_folder' versus 'keychain_list_folders' or 'keychain_get_item'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' implying a destructive mutation, but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects child resources, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, expected outcomes, or error conditions. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'organizationId' and 'id' represent, their format, or where to obtain them. For a 2-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, this leaves the agent guessing about required inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target ('organization collection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keychain_delete_folder' or 'keychain_delete_item' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'keychain_delete_org_collection' alternatives (there are none) or explain what an 'organization collection' is beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing collection), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if in use), or related tools like 'keychain_edit_org_collection' or 'keychain_list_org_collections'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 renames folders, implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, error cases, and output, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions renaming a folder, which implies 'name' is the new name, but doesn't explain 'id' (e.g., folder identifier) or provide any syntax, constraints, or examples. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Rename') and resource ('a Bitwarden folder') with specificity. It adds the qualifier '(personal)' which distinguishes it from organizational folders, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'keychain_edit_org_collection' beyond the personal scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or compare it to similar tools like 'keychain_edit_org_collection' for organizational folders, leaving usage context implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Rename' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether the rename is reversible, what happens to references to the old collection name, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple rename operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 undocumented parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the parameters represent, what the tool returns, or any behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so all three parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'Rename' which implies a 'name' parameter, but doesn't explain the purpose of 'organizationId' and 'id' parameters or provide any format/constraint details. The description adds minimal value beyond what can be inferred from the tool name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Rename') and target ('an organization collection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'keychain_edit_folder' or 'keychain_update_item', which appear to perform similar edit/update operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'keychain_update_item' and 'keychain_edit_folder' available, the agent receives no help in choosing between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it mentions searching by term but doesn't describe what 'reveal' parameter does, how results are returned, or any limitations. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (one sentence plus parenthetical), but the parenthetical '(bw get notes)' adds no value for an AI agent and wastes space. The core description is front-loaded but could be more efficiently structured to explain both parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search/retrieval tool with 2 parameters (one undocumented), no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'item notes' are, how results are structured, what the 'reveal' parameter controls, or how this differs from other search/retrieval tools in the sibling list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only mentions 'search term' which corresponds to the 'term' parameter, leaving the 'reveal' parameter completely unexplained. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('item notes'), specifying it's done 'by search term'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keychain_get_item' by focusing specifically on notes. However, it doesn't fully clarify what 'item notes' means in this context (notes within items vs. note items).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'keychain_search_items' or 'keychain_get_item'. The description mentions a search term but doesn't explain whether this is the primary search method for notes or if there are other options. The parenthetical '(bw get notes)' appears to reference a CLI command but doesn't help the AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the optional assignment of collection ids, which adds some context, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, permission requirements, side effects on the item or organization, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes the optional parameter detail concisely, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits, return values, and usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'collection ids' as optional, ignoring 'id' and 'organizationId' parameters. This leaves two required parameters undocumented, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Move') and target ('an item to an organization'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'keychain_delete_item' or 'keychain_update_item'. However, it doesn't specify what type of 'item' is being moved (e.g., login, card, note), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'keychain_update_item' or 'keychain_restore_item', nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints. It simply restates the basic function without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a folder but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error conditions (e.g., duplicate names), or what happens on success (e.g., returns a folder ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, return values, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('name') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't add any parameter details (e.g., format, constraints, or examples). Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, reducing the score to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('Bitwarden folder') with the qualifier '(personal)', which distinguishes it from organizational folders. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'keychain_edit_folder' or 'keychain_delete_folder', though the verb 'Create' implies a distinct operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when not to use it (e.g., for organizational folders), or refer to sibling tools like 'keychain_edit_folder' for modifications. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 indicates a destructive operation ('Delete') and mentions the return value ('updated (redacted) item'), which adds some context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or what 'redacted' entails, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and outcome. There's no unnecessary verbiage, making it easy to parse, though it could benefit from more detail given the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, error handling, or the implications of deletion (e.g., permanence), leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its 3 parameters (itemId, attachmentId, reveal), and the description provides no additional semantic information about them. It doesn't explain what 'reveal' does or how to obtain the IDs, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete an attachment') and target resource ('from an item'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keychain_delete_item' by focusing on attachments rather than entire items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'keychain_get_attachment' in terms of operation type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'keychain_delete_item' or 'keychain_delete_items'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing the item and attachment IDs, nor does it clarify the relationship with sibling tools like 'keychain_create_attachment'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting contained items), or rate limits. For a destructive operation, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part earns its place by specifying the tool's focus.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like success/error responses, irreversible effects, or dependencies. For a delete operation, this minimal information is inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information beyond implying an 'id' is needed. It doesn't explain what the 'id' represents (e.g., folder UUID), how to obtain it, or format requirements. Baseline is 3 since the schema covers the single required parameter, but the description fails to compensate for the 0% coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('Bitwarden folder'), specifying it's for personal folders. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keychain_delete_item' or 'keychain_delete_org_collection' by focusing on folders, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'keychain_edit_folder' or 'keychain_get_folder'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing folder ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete system folders), or comparisons to siblings like 'keychain_delete_item' for broader deletions. The description is purely functional without contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds useful behavioral context about the reveal parameter requirement for returning values, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when parameters are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence establishes purpose and generation methods, while the second provides a critical behavioral requirement. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by front-loading the reveal requirement more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how different generation types work, or the relationships between parameters (e.g., when email/domain are required). For a generation tool with multiple configuration options, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description carries significant burden but adds minimal parameter semantics. It only mentions the 'reveal' parameter requirement and lists some generation types that correspond to the 'type' enum. Most parameters (capitalize, includeNumber, email, domain) receive no explanation in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a username like the Bitwarden generator' with specific generation methods listed (random word, plus-addressed email, catch-all). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on username generation specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like keychain_generate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions that 'Returning the value requires reveal=true' which is a technical requirement, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like keychain_generate or keychain_get_username, nor when different generation types are appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context—it implies searching by term but doesn't specify if it returns exact matches, partial matches, or multiple results. No additional details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions are provided. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but adds little value beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point—a single sentence that states the core function. The parenthetical '(bw get uri)' could be seen as slightly redundant but provides implementation hint. Overall, it's efficiently structured without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a single URI string, a list, or an object with metadata), error behaviors, or how the search operates. For a tool with undocumented parameters and no output details, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no documentation for the 'term' parameter. The description only mentions 'search term' generically, without explaining what constitutes a valid term (e.g., URI fragment, item name), expected format, or examples. This leaves the parameter's meaning ambiguous, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('login URI'), and specifies it uses a search term. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'keychain_get_item' or 'keychain_search_items', which might also retrieve login-related data. The parenthetical '(bw get uri)' provides implementation context but doesn't enhance purpose clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve data (e.g., 'keychain_get_item', 'keychain_search_items'), the description lacks context about whether this is for specific URI retrieval versus general item search, or any prerequisites like authentication state. It merely restates the basic function without usage boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description doesn't contradict this and implicitly aligns with it by using 'List', which suggests a non-destructive action. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover, such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs, so it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of detailed annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'List organization collections.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations only covering read-only status), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, return values, error conditions, and differentiation from siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (organizationId, search, limit) are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters, failing to compensate for the schema gap. It doesn't explain what organizationId refers to, how search works, or the purpose of the limit parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List organization collections' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('organization collections'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'keychain_list_collections' or 'keychain_list_folders', leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes organization collections from other collection types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for use, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'keychain_list_collections' or 'keychain_get_org_collection', leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool restores from trash, implying a mutation (write operation) that changes item state. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if restoration affects other items), error conditions, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations, 1 parameter at 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., success/failure outcomes), parameter specifics, and usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the parameter 'id' as the means to restore, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the id format (e.g., numeric, UUID) or source, leaving ambiguity. The description provides basic semantics but insufficient detail for full clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Restore') and resource ('item from trash'), specifying it's done 'by id'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keychain_delete_item' (opposite action) and 'keychain_get_item' (read vs. restore). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential restore-related siblings, though none are listed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., item must be in trash), exclusions, or related tools like 'keychain_delete_item' for context. The description is purely functional without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is not read-only, is open-world, and non-destructive, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds some context with 'bw send' hinting at a CLI tool, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'Create' entails beyond the basic action. With annotations covering safety, it earns a baseline 3 for minimal added value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a specific note for file sends. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be more structured (e.g., separating general and file-specific instructions). Overall, it's efficient with little waste, earning a 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations only covering basic hints, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or most parameter uses, leaving significant gaps for a complex creation tool. This results in a score of 2.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'filename+contentBase64' for file sends, ignoring 10 other parameters like 'deleteInDays', 'password', etc. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap, warranting a score of 2.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a Bitwarden Send') and resource ('Send'), which is specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keychain_send_delete' or 'keychain_send_edit' by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'keychain_send_create_encoded' or other creation tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: it mentions 'For file sends, pass filename+contentBase64' but lacks explicit when-to-use advice, prerequisites, or alternatives. No context on when to choose this over 'keychain_send_create_encoded' or other creation tools, resulting in a score of 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires authentication/permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens with invalid fields, whether partial updates are atomic, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 7 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies the key parameters. Every word serves a purpose in this minimal formulation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with complex nested parameters (patch contains multiple object types including login with URIs and fields arrays), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'item', what fields are updatable, authentication requirements, error conditions, or return values. The complexity demands more contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'selected fields' and 'by id', which aligns with the two parameters (id and patch). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description doesn't explain what fields can be updated, the structure of the patch object, or provide examples. It adds minimal value beyond what's obvious from parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update selected fields') and target ('an item by id'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like 'keychain_edit_folder' or 'keychain_edit_org_collection', which likely perform similar partial updates on different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for creating, deleting, and editing various resources, but no indication of when partial item updates are appropriate versus complete replacements or when to use other item-related tools like 'keychain_restore_item' or 'keychain_move_item_to_organization'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates it's a safe read operation. The description implies retrieval by ID but does not disclose details like error handling, permissions, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations, but provides little extra value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence serves a purpose, earning its place efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and low parameter coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what a 'collection' is, what data is returned, or how parameters interact. For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'id' implicitly but provides no details on format or usage. The 'organizationId' parameter is entirely undocumented, leaving semantics unclear. This falls short of the needed compensation for low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('collection by id'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keychain_list_collections' by specifying retrieval of a single collection rather than listing multiple. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'collection' entails in this context, which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), differentiate from similar tools like 'keychain_get_org_collection', or specify contexts where it is appropriate. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description confirms this with 'Get', aligning with annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part earns its place, making it efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) but no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and parameter semantics, leaving gaps for a tool with 2 parameters. More context is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by id', which corresponds to the 'id' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'organizationId' parameter or provide any semantic details about format, constraints, or relationships between parameters. This leaves half the parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('org collection'), and specifies it's retrieved 'by id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'keychain_list_org_collections' by focusing on a single item retrieval rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get' tools like 'keychain_get_collection' or 'keychain_get_organization'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to similar tools like 'keychain_get_collection' or 'keychain_get_organization'. The only implied usage is needing an 'id', but this is already in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'personal' folders, which hints at scope, but doesn't disclose other traits like pagination, error handling, or authentication needs. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, parameter usage, or behavioral details, making it inadequate for a tool with two parameters and no structured output documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for the two parameters ('search' and 'limit'), the description provides no information about their purpose, usage, or semantics. It doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('Bitwarden folders') with the qualifier '(personal)', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'keychain_list_collections' or 'keychain_list_org_collections', which also list different types of resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'keychain_search_items' for filtered searches or clarify the scope of 'personal' folders in relation to organizational ones, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning search filters (org/folder/collection/url), but doesn't disclose important details like search behavior (partial/full text match), pagination (implied by limit parameter but not explained), or authentication requirements. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action (search vault items) and efficiently lists filter types in parentheses. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and only a basic readOnlyHint annotation, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on search semantics, result format, error conditions, and parameter interactions. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for reliable agent use given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 8 parameters, the description carries full burden. It mentions text and four filter types (org/folder/collection/url), covering only 5 of 8 parameters. It omits explanation of type (with enum values), trash, and limit parameters entirely, and doesn't clarify the special null/notnull values for organizationId and folderId. The description adds some value but fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as searching vault items with text and filters, specifying the resource (vault items) and action (search). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like keychain_get_item or keychain_list_collections by focusing on filtered search rather than direct retrieval or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar search tools (none exist in siblings).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when search is preferable to direct get/list operations, what the search scope is (e.g., personal vs organizational vaults), or any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with the 'download' action in the description, so there's no contradiction. The description adds that it returns data 'as base64', providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Download an attachment') and includes essential details (source and output format) without redundancy. The parenthetical '(bw get attachment)' adds brief context without disrupting flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete for a simple read operation. It covers the action and output format but lacks details on parameters, error cases, or system behavior. With annotations providing safety context, it meets minimal viability but has clear gaps in guiding effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'item' and 'attachment' but doesn't explain what 'itemId' and 'attachmentId' represent, their formats, or how to obtain them. It adds minimal semantic value, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Download an attachment') and resource ('from an item'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keychain_create_attachment' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get operations like 'keychain_get_item' or 'keychain_get_password', which slightly reduces specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid item and attachment IDs), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'keychain_get_item' or 'keychain_send_get'. Usage is implied only by the action described, with no explicit context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, confirming this is a destructive write operation. The description adds context by specifying it's for 'Send' objects, which aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or irreversible effects beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Send' is, the implications of deletion, expected outcomes, or error handling. Given the complexity hinted by sibling tools (e.g., keychain_send_create, keychain_send_edit), more context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter 'id' undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details—it doesn't explain what the 'id' represents (e.g., a Send ID from keychain_send_get) or its format. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of semantic information reduces it to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a Send (bw send delete)' states the action (delete) and resource (a Send), but it's vague about what a 'Send' is and doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like keychain_delete_attachment or keychain_delete_folder. It restates the tool name without adding clarity about scope or context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., keychain_delete_attachment, keychain_delete_folder), but the description doesn't specify that this is for deleting 'Send' objects specifically or mention prerequisites like needing a Send ID from keychain_send_get or keychain_send_list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a mutable, non-destructive tool (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) with open-world data (openWorldHint: true). The description adds context about the encoding process ('bw-encoded'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or error handling beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main action, using two sentences efficiently. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be more structured in explaining parameter choices.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering only basic hints, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or how the editing process works, making it insufficient for a mutation tool in a complex sibling set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description explains that 'encodedJson' is base64 and 'json' will be bw-encoded, and 'itemId' maps to --itemid, adding some semantics. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving gaps in understanding parameter usage or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Edit a Send') and the mechanism ('via bw send edit'), which is specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keychain_send_create' or 'keychain_send_delete' by focusing on editing, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional parameters but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'encodedJson' over 'json' or how it differs from other send-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it retrieves 'by id', which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., if ID is invalid), permissions, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The parenthetical '(bw get organization)' is slightly redundant but not wasteful. It could be more structured (e.g., separating usage notes), but it's appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally complete. It lacks output details (no schema), error handling, and sibling differentiation, but the core function is clear. Given the low complexity and annotation support, it's adequate but leaves room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema alone documents the 'id' parameter without descriptions. The description mentions 'by id', adding minimal semantic context (it's an identifier for lookup). It doesn't specify format (e.g., UUID) or examples, leaving gaps. With one parameter and low coverage, this is adequate but not compensatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('organization'), and specifies it's retrieved 'by id'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keychain_list_organizations' by focusing on a single entity rather than listing. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other 'get' tools like 'keychain_get_item' or 'keychain_get_folder' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an organization ID), contrast with 'keychain_list_organizations' for browsing, or specify use cases. The parenthetical '(bw get organization)' is a command reference but not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates a safe read operation, and the description doesn't contradict this. However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, error handling, or output format, missing opportunities to enrich the agent's understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient, with every part contributing to clarity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, read-only annotation), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavioral nuances, or parameter meaning, which could hinder the agent in more complex scenarios despite the simple structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and one parameter ('value'), the description doesn't add any semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides (type: string). It doesn't explain what 'value' represents, its constraints, or examples, leaving the schema to carry the full burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema is simple and complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Base64-encode') and the resource ('a string'), with the parenthetical '(bw encode)' providing additional context about the tool's origin or format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on encoding rather than CRUD operations on keychain items, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar encoding tools if any exist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to other encoding methods or sibling tools, leaving the agent without explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it specifies retrieval by ID but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations cover safety (read-only) and the tool has only 2 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and incomplete parameter explanation (especially for 'reveal'), it leaves gaps in understanding the full tool behavior and response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'by id', which clarifies the purpose of the required 'id' parameter, but doesn't explain the optional 'reveal' parameter at all. This partial compensation justifies a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('vault item by id'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'keychain_get_attachment' or 'keychain_get_folder', which also retrieve specific items by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'keychain_search_items' for broader queries and 'keychain_get_password' for specific field retrieval, the description offers no context about selection criteria or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, confirming it's a safe read operation, but the description doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'bw get username' implies (e.g., Bitwarden CLI reference). It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers little extra value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick understanding by an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, read-only per annotations) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, or output, leaving gaps that could hinder correct tool invocation in more complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'by search term', which aligns with the single parameter 'term' in the input schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no details on the parameter's meaning or format. The description adds some semantics but doesn't fully compensate, such as explaining what the search term targets or expected formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get a login username') and resource ('by search term'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'keychain_get_item' or 'keychain_search_items', which might also retrieve usernames or related data, so it's not fully distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'keychain_get_item' for broader item retrieval or 'keychain_search_items' for more complex searches. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning optional filtering, but doesn't disclose important traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'list' entails (e.g., format, sorting). With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List collections') and adds qualifying information concisely. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant phrasing, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with filtering parameters), lack of output schema, and annotations only covering read-only status, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and a key filter but doesn't explain return format, error conditions, or parameter details. For a list tool with three parameters at 0% schema coverage, more contextual information would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (search, organizationId, limit) have descriptions in the schema. The description only mentions 'optionally filtered by organization', which partially explains the organizationId parameter but ignores 'search' and 'limit'. It doesn't clarify what 'search' filters on, what 'limit' defaults to, or parameter interactions, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('collections'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other list operations like 'keychain_list_folders' and 'keychain_list_organizations' by specifying collections. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'keychain_list_org_collections', which appears to be a sibling tool with similar functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning optional filtering by organization, suggesting this tool is for retrieving collections with potential organizational scoping. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'keychain_list_org_collections' or 'keychain_get_collection', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, specifying that it lists organizations 'available to the current Bitwarden user,' which implies scope but does not detail aspects like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (a read-only list operation with 2 optional parameters), no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, output format, or error handling, which could aid an AI agent in proper invocation, though the simplicity of the tool mitigates some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the input schema lacks descriptions for the 'search' and 'limit' parameters. The description does not mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. However, since there are only 2 parameters and the tool's purpose is straightforward, the baseline score of 3 is applied as it minimally meets expectations without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('organizations available to the current Bitwarden user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'keychain_get_organization' or 'keychain_list_org_collections', which might offer similar or overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'keychain_get_organization' for retrieving a single organization or 'keychain_list_org_collections' for listing collections within organizations. It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds that it creates a Send via a specific command (`bw send create`), which provides implementation context. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling beyond what annotations cover, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists parameter options, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering basic safety, the description provides essential parameter explanations but lacks details on return values, error cases, or usage examples. It's minimally adequate for a mutation tool but leaves significant context gaps for proper agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'encodedJson' is base64 and 'json' will be bw-encoded, and clarifies optional parameters ('text', 'hidden', 'file' with filename+contentBase64). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, but doesn't detail all parameter interactions or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a Send') and the mechanism ('via `bw send create`'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'keychain_send_create' by specifying the encoded JSON input format, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all other 'create' tools (e.g., 'keychain_create_login').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the sibling tool 'keychain_send_create' implicitly through the command reference, but doesn't explain when to choose encoded JSON input over other methods or tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool's mutating behavior ('Set or update') and the effect of 'mode', but fails to address critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded and efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second clarifies parameter behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, error cases, and the meaning of 'reveal'. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the semantics of the 'mode' parameter ('replace overwrites; mode=merge updates/adds by uri') and implying 'uris' includes 'per-URI match types'. It doesn't cover 'id' or 'reveal', but adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Set or update') and resource ('URIs for a login item'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keychain_create_login' (creation) and 'keychain_update_item' (general update), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by explaining the 'mode' parameter behavior ('replace overwrites; merge updates/adds'), which suggests when to use each mode. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'keychain_update_item' or prerequisites for the 'id' parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that deletion can be soft or hard (permanent=true), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, what 'per-id results' means, or whether deletion is reversible. For a destructive operation with no annotations, more behavioral details would be expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two sentences) with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important behavioral detail about soft/hard deletion. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete coverage. It explains the deletion behavior (soft/hard) and parameter purposes, but lacks information about authentication, error handling, what 'per-id results' contains, and doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools. Given the complexity of a batch deletion operation, more completeness would be expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'ids' parameter accepts multiple item IDs (1-200 items) and that 'permanent' controls hard vs soft deletion. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain ID format or provide examples of valid IDs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete multiple items by id') and resource ('items'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'keychain_delete_item' by specifying 'multiple items' versus single item deletion. However, it doesn't specify what type of items (e.g., logins, cards, notes) are being deleted, which would make it more specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'keychain_delete_item' (single item deletion) or 'keychain_delete_folder' (folder deletion). It mentions 'soft-delete by default' but doesn't explain what soft delete means or when to use permanent deletion. No prerequisites or contextual usage information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe operation) and openWorldHint=true (can access external resources), which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds context about accessing Bitwarden Sends and optional behaviors for JSON or file content, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs beyond the password parameter, or what happens with invalid URLs. With annotations covering safety, it adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence efficiently explains parameter usage. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter guidance).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description doesn't explain return values. With annotations covering safety, it adds basic purpose and parameter hints. However, for a tool with 4 parameters (0% schema coverage) and no output schema, it should provide more complete guidance on all parameters and expected behavior to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'obj=true for JSON object; downloadFile=true for file content', explaining two parameters (obj and downloadFile) but not url or password. It adds meaning for those two parameters, but leaves url and password unexplained. With 4 parameters total and partial coverage, it compensates somewhat but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Access a Bitwarden Send') and resource ('from a url'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on receiving/accessing Sends rather than creating, editing, or deleting them. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'keychain_send_get' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to access a Bitwarden Send via URL, with optional parameters for JSON object or file content. It mentions 'Use obj=true for JSON object; downloadFile=true for file content' which provides some guidance on parameter usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'keychain_send_get' or other retrieval tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like having the URL or password.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, confirming it's a safe read operation. The description specifies what status information is returned (locked/unlocked, server, user), which is useful but doesn't cover other traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Returns Bitwarden CLI status (locked/unlocked, server, user).' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential details in parentheses, with no wasted words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what status is returned, but lacks details on format (e.g., structured data vs. plain text), error cases, or dependencies. For a status-checking tool, this is minimally viable but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline of 4. It appropriately focuses on the tool's output semantics instead.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns Bitwarden CLI status (locked/unlocked, server, user).' It specifies the verb ('Returns') and resource ('Bitwarden CLI status') with details on what status information is provided. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'keychain_get_organization' or 'keychain_get_username', which are also read operations but for specific data rather than overall CLI status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the CLI must be initialized), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'keychain_get_organization' for server details or 'keychain_get_username' for user info. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the reveal parameter requirement for password retrieval, which isn't covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if multiple matches exist for the search term.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage information about the reveal parameter. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates somewhat by explaining parameter semantics. However, for a tool that retrieves sensitive data (passwords), it lacks details on authentication requirements, error conditions, or return format. The annotations cover safety but not operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description clarifies that 'term' is a search term and 'reveal' is required to return a password, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain the format of 'term' or the implications of reveal=false.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get a login password') and resource ('by search term'), with the parenthetical '(bw get password)' reinforcing the specific operation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keychain_get_username' or 'keychain_get_item' by focusing on passwords, but doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'keychain_search_items'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating 'Returning a password requires reveal=true', which suggests when to use the reveal parameter. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'keychain_get_item' or 'keychain_search_items', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it discloses that passwords may not be returned by default (requiring reveal=true) and hints at conditional data availability ('if any'), which are behavioral traits not covered by annotations alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two brief sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently adds critical usage detail about 'reveal', making every word earn its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the tool's purpose and a key parameter behavior, but lacks details on return format, error conditions, or historical data scope, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only partially does so. It explains the 'reveal' parameter's effect on returning passwords, but omits semantics for 'id' (e.g., what it refers to) and doesn't clarify parameter interactions or constraints, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('password history'), specifying it retrieves historical passwords for an item. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keychain_get_password' by focusing on history rather than current password, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling get operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when password history is needed, with the 'reveal' parameter condition for returning passwords. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'keychain_get_item' or prerequisites for accessing history, leaving usage context partially implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (mutation) and readOnlyHint=false (non-read-only), which align with 'Remove' in the description. The description adds context by specifying it targets 'saved password' rather than the Send itself, clarifying scope. However, it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., if the Send becomes inaccessible) or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action ('Remove a Send's saved password') and includes a concise parenthetical for technical context, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is minimal but functional. It covers the basic purpose and parameter intent, but lacks details on behavior (e.g., error cases, confirmation prompts) and doesn't fully compensate for the missing parameter documentation, leaving room for ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter 'id' undocumented in the schema. The description implies 'id' refers to a Send (from 'a Send's saved password'), adding semantic meaning. However, it doesn't specify the ID format or source, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('a Send's saved password'), with the parenthetical 'bw send remove-password' providing additional context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keychain_send_delete' (deletes the entire Send) or 'keychain_send_edit' (modifies Send properties), but doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the Send must exist, user must have permission), nor does it clarify scenarios where removing a password is appropriate versus editing or deleting the Send entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that returning a TOTP 'requires reveal=true', indicating an authentication or permission requirement not captured in annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or response format details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds the critical behavioral requirement. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a read-only tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a key behavioral requirement (reveal=true), but lacks details about return format, error cases, or what happens when reveal=false. For a security-sensitive TOTP retrieval tool, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially. It explains that 'term' is a search term for finding TOTP items and that 'reveal' must be true to return the TOTP code/seed. However, it doesn't fully document both parameters - missing details about term format/matching or reveal's exact effect. The baseline would be lower without this partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a TOTP code/seed by search term' - a specific verb (get) and resource (TOTP code/seed). It distinguishes from siblings like 'keychain_get_password' or 'keychain_get_username' by specifying TOTP retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible get operations, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance: 'by search term' suggests this is for retrieving TOTP when you know a search term, and 'requires reveal=true' indicates a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'keychain_get_item' or 'keychain_search_items', nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies that deletion is soft by default and can be made permanent with a parameter. This clarifies the mutation's impact and options, though it doesn't address permissions, error conditions, or what 'soft-delete' entails (e.g., recoverability).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately provides critical behavioral detail (soft/hard delete). Every word adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and a key parameter nuance adequately. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., authentication), side effects, or return values, which would be helpful given the tool's destructive potential and the absence of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for the 'permanent' parameter by explaining its effect (hard vs. soft delete), which isn't evident from the schema alone. However, it doesn't clarify the 'id' parameter (e.g., format or source), leaving some gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target ('an item by id'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'keychain_delete_folder' or 'keychain_delete_items' by specifying item-level deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what type of item (e.g., login, card, note) is being deleted, which could help differentiate from other delete operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning the 'permanent' parameter option for hard vs. soft delete, suggesting when to use this variant. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'keychain_delete_items' (bulk deletion) or 'keychain_restore_item' (undoing soft deletes), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only and open-world behavior, which the description aligns with by describing a retrieval operation. The description adds valuable context about ownership ('owned by you') and the effects of optional parameters (returning text content or downloading files), which aren't covered by annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise parameter guidance. Both sentences earn their place by adding distinct value—no wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a retrieval tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers ownership and parameter effects adequately. However, it lacks details on response format, error conditions, or pagination, which would be helpful given the complexity of handling sends with optional content types.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the purpose of two optional parameters ('text' and 'downloadFile'). It doesn't cover the required 'id' parameter's semantics, but the added value for the optional parameters is significant given the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get Sends') and specifies ownership scope ('owned by you'), which distinguishes it from potentially public or shared sends. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'keychain_send_list' or 'keychain_get_item', which might also retrieve send-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving sends with optional text or file content, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'keychain_send_list' (for listing) or 'keychain_get_item' (for general item retrieval). It mentions parameter usage but not tool selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation with potentially large results. The description adds context by specifying 'owned by you,' which clarifies scope beyond annotations. It doesn't detail behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits, but with annotations covering safety, this adds moderate value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('List all the Sends') and includes essential scope ('owned by you'), making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It specifies scope ('owned by you'), but lacks details on output format or potential limitations like pagination. For a simple list tool, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 ('all the Sends owned by you'), specifying the scope as owned items. It distinguishes from siblings like keychain_send_get (retrieves a specific Send) and keychain_send_create (creates a Send), making the purpose specific and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating 'owned by you,' which suggests it's for viewing personal Sends. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like keychain_search_items for broader searches, so it provides clear context but lacks exclusions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![warden-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/icoretech/warden-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/icoretech/warden-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![warden-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/icoretech/warden-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/icoretech/warden-mcp)

How to claim the server?

If you are the author of the server, you simply need to authenticate using GitHub.

However, if the MCP server belongs to an organization, you need to first add glama.json to the root of your repository.

{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

Then, authenticate using GitHub.

Browse examples.

How to make a release?

A "release" on Glama is not the same as a GitHub release. To create a Glama release:

Claim the server if you haven't already.
Go to the Dockerfile admin page, configure the build spec, and click Deploy.
Once the build test succeeds, click Make Release, enter a version, and publish.

This process allows Glama to run security checks on your server and enables users to deploy it.

How to add a LICENSE?

Please follow the instructions in the GitHub documentation.

Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

If the license does not appear on the server after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Latest Blog Posts

Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
By punkpeye on April 3, 2026.
mcp
The Hackers Who Tracked My Sleep Cycle
By punkpeye on March 26, 2026.
security
Open Source Has a Bot Problem
By punkpeye on March 19, 2026.
open source

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/icoretech/warden-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server