credentials_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that secrets are not returned, which is a relevant behavioral guarantee派驻. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only or describe any other side effects, though 'check' strongly implies a non-mutating operation.

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 directly communicates the tool's purpose and its key security-relevant behavior. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

Despite the low parameter count and presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete because it fails to explain how the lone base_url parameter relates to the 'saved title' lookup mentioned in the description. An agent cannot confidently determine how to invoke this tool for all declared scenarios, so the definition is not fully self-contained.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the base_url parameter, but it does not clarify whether the parameter accepts a base URL, a saved title, or both. The phrase 'base URL or saved title' suggests the single parameter may serve two purposes, but no format or precedence is documented, leaving meaningful ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb ('check whether credentials exist') and resource ('credentials'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from credential-retrieval tools by noting it returns no secrets. However, the phrase 'or saved title' introduces a second lookup mode that is not reflected in the schema, which slightly blurs the tool's exact scope.

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 this tool should be used when you need to verify existence rather than retrieve secret values, but it does not explicitly mention any sibling alternatives such as credentials_list or credentials_titles. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided beyond the general purpose.

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