List a computer’s credential gateway bindings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description still adds substantial value: secrets are returned only as ids, never values (a critical safety disclosure), the access level required is stated, and a hard limit of 8 bindings per computer is given. It stops short of saying what happens when the computer is stopped or whether the list is ever truncated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the returned fields before the permission and quota constraints. The enumerated field list is dense but every item carries information the agent needs to interpret the response.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the job of explaining return contents, and it does so field by field. The permission statement and the 8-binding ceiling round it out; only edge behavior (empty list, stopped computer) is unaddressed.

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% and the single parameter already documents its own default ('use_computer'). The description's phrase 'of one computer' contextualizes but adds no syntax, format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the exact resource (credential gateway bindings of one computer) and enumerates what each binding contains, so an agent knows precisely what will come back. It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' and never names the sibling tools (create_/delete_credential_gateway_binding) it complements, so sibling differentiation is only implicit in the name.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description establishes the read scope and the permission model ('Owners and members may read them'), which is a real gating condition. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus create_credential_gateway_binding or delete_credential_gateway_binding, and no statement about prerequisites such as the computer being running.

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