list_credentials

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It transparently discloses the critical limitation 'never shows values' and clarifies it returns metadata only. However, it does not mention other behaviors like response format or potential rate limits, though for a simple list operation this is adequate.

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 a single sentence of 13 words, directly stating the verb and resource, with key details front-loaded. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose, parameter behavior, and a critical behavioral trait. It could optionally describe the return format (e.g., list of objects), but the listed fields (names, types, expiry) give sufficient context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for wallet_id. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that the tool works per wallet and noting auto-resolution for single-wallet sessions.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists credential metadata for a wallet, specifies the included fields (names, types, expiry), and explicitly notes it never shows values, distinguishing it from credential value retrieval tools and other list tools among siblings.

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?

Provides implicit guidance by stating 'never shows values' and auto-resolution for single-wallet sessions, but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives. The description hints, but does not fully direct the agent when to choose this tool over others.

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