List Live Source Credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds no further behavioral details like pagination, return format, or auth requirements, but for a zero-parameter list operation this is adequate, though not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource. Every word is informative, and there is no padding or repetition of the title or schema.

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 low-complexity tool with no parameters and good annotations, the description is sufficient to convey what it does. It could explicitly say it returns all matching credentials, but the scope is clear from the 'available for use with live sources' qualifier.

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 schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters because none exist; it correctly keeps the focus on the tool's purpose.

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 clearly identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('credentials available for use with live sources'), which distinguishes it from the generic credential list sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or highlight the difference, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'available for use with live sources' implies when this tool is appropriate—when the agent needs credentials tied to live sources. It provides clear context, but it doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or contrast with the generic lyzr_credential_list sibling.

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