List Source Credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds meaningful context beyond them — secrets are never returned, and credentials are provisioned in the console rather than here. It doesn't mention ordering, empty-workspace behavior, or limits, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the secret-safety guarantee, then invocation guidance and parameter guidance. No filler; every sentence carries distinct 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 read-only, one-optional-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, downstream usage, credential creation path, and parameter fallback behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the single `workspace` parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that it takes a workspace id, that a label also works, and that it may be omitted for single-workspace users. Minor gap: no format example for the id.

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 specific verb and resource ('List the Hugging Face tokens and CivitAI keys saved in a workspace') and immediately scopes the return to id and label only. An agent knows exactly what this returns and that no other sibling tool does this.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: pass an id as `hf_token_id`/`civitai_key_id` to detect_model, register_model, or import_asset for private or gated sources, and notes credentials are added in the console (so this tool cannot create them). The workspace sourcing rule (id from workspaces tool, label also works, omit if only one) is spelled out.

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