List Provider Credentials By User And Type

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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, pagination, or sensitivity of credentials. It essentially restates the operation without enriching the agent's understanding.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No wasted words or redundant elaboration, achieving exactly what is needed with minimal text.

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 two-parameter list operation with strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it refers to 'a user's credentials' without clarifying whether the user is the current authenticated user or if a user parameter is expected (though not in the schema). This minor ambiguity prevents a perfect score.

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 100% with both parameters having clear descriptions ('The provider type to filter by', 'The provider id to filter by'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely echoes the parameter names. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('a user's credentials') and the filtering criteria ('given provider type and provider id'). It differentiates from the sibling tool 'lyzr_list_provider_credentials_by_type' by scoping to a user, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies the tool is for listing credentials with user, type, and id scoping, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this over the sibling 'by_type' tool or other credential-listing tools. There are no declared exclusions or alternatives, leaving usage context implicit.

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