List Stored Credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that credentials reside in .env files at local/global locations, which is useful context, but it does not disclose whether secret values are returned in full or masked, or what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and the storage-location scope appear immediately, and nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is low complexity (one optional enum param, no output schema) and annotations fully carry the safety profile, so the description is nearly sufficient. The only notable omission is any hint about whether credential values are exposed, which would matter for an agent deciding how to handle the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with storage_scope fully documented as an optional enum filter. The description's phrase 'local/global' mirrors the enum values the schema already defines, so it adds no syntax or default behavior beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb (inspect/list) and resource (stored credentials) and scopes it to local/global .env files. It is distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like import_apikey_credentials and remove_stored_credentials, but does not explicitly contrast itself against list_connections, which an agent might confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The description never mentions remove_stored_credentials or import_apikey_credentials, so the agent must infer the read-only inspection role from the name alone.

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