Find Asset Passwords By Slug

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, but the description discloses real behavior: a hard bounded scan (limit default 25, max 100, client stop at 500 records / 4 pages) that yields RESOLUTION_TRUNCATED rather than a partial answer, plus the fact that credential-shaped fields are returned and masked by the SDK in results and diagnostics. This is context an agent cannot derive from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the preferred-use statement, then limits, then exclusions, then sensitivity. Dense and information-rich with almost no filler, though the parenthetical field list ('passwordable_id, passwordable_type, description, … dropped') reads as clipped and slightly obscures the point.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no exhaustive treatment, yet the description still flags the masked-credential behavior, the truncation sentinel, and the scan caps. Given the nested opts object and the sensitivity of the data, nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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 50% and the schema already documents both slug and opts.expand. The description adds real meaning on top: expand: true returns the full AssetPassword while the default returns a compact AssetPasswordSummary with fields dropped, and it clarifies the scan bound applies rather than the caller-supplied limit being a page size.

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 (find) and a tightly scoped resource (one password record by URL slug), and explicitly positions itself against a full asset passwords scan and against the sibling tools hudu_search / hudu_get_asset_password. An agent can distinguish it from neighbors without reading any 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?

Names the preferred case ('Preferred over a full asset passwords scan for a slug lookup') and the exclusions ('Do not use it to enumerate or to page... call hudu_search or hudu_get_asset_password for that'). When-to-use, when-not-to-use and the alternative are all explicit.

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