list_users_with_passkey

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no mention of result size, pagination, truncation at the limit, or whether the read is tenant-scoped. It is neither contradictory nor additive.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is tight and readable, though the sentence is so sparse that it barely carries information.

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

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

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, an agent mostly needs the filter condition and the result-shaping parameter behavior. The filter condition is communicated, but with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the meaning of 'limit' and any pagination semantics are left entirely unexplained.

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 0% for the single parameter 'limit' (integer, default 100). The description says nothing about the limit, pagination, or whether 100 is a ceiling, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 sentence names a specific verb and resource (lists users) with a filter qualifier (registered passkey/FIDO2), so the purpose is understandable. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name plus the FIDO2 synonym, adding no scope detail (tenant-wide? paginated? does it include disabled users?) and no differentiation from siblings such as list_users or list_users_without_mfa.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. Given the dense sibling set of user-listing tools (list_users, list_users_with_direct_permissions, list_users_without_mfa, list_users_with_weak_authentication), the agent must infer that this is the passkey-registration view; the description does not state that or draw any boundary.

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