search_passwords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states that password values are not included in results, which is a critical safety disclosure. It also mentions the side effect of save_to_file writing full results to a temp file. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read operation it provides sufficient transparency about its behavior and boundaries.

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

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

The description is compact and well-structured, starting with a one-line summary and then listing Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose and keeps parameter details succinct.

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 description covers all parameters, provides defaults and constraints, describes the return format (JSON string without password values), and notes the save_to_file side effect. Given the output schema is present (though not shown), further detail on return structure is unnecessary. Minor gaps like pagination or sorting are not critical for basic usage, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: query, organization_id for limiting search, limit with default and max, output_format with explicit allowed values, and save_to_file for temp file saving. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types and defaults, making the parameter semantics clear and self-sufficient.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Search for passwords by name.' It clearly identifies the search field (name) and distinguishes from sibling search tools for other resources like organizations or contacts. The purpose is unambiguous and does not require reading the schema.

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

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

The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus list_passwords or get_password. It implies usage when you have a query string to search by name, but no alternative routing or exclusions are provided. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance, scoring a 3.

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