cred_refs

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds important context that only references are stored, not the actual credentials. However, it does not disclose what destructive actions may occur (e.g., overwriting existing references), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

One concise sentence plus an example. No filler, every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 add/list tool with fully described schema parameters, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly explains the tool's purpose and gives a concrete example. Missing explicit usage guidelines and destructive behavior details keep it from being perfect.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented in structured form. The description adds a concrete example but no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Store pointers to where credentials are documented (not the credentials themselves).' It uses a specific verb ('store') and resource ('pointers to where credentials are documented'), and explicitly differentiates from storing the credentials themselves, distinguishing it from sibling write/read tools.

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 provides an illustrative example ('Django admin creds are in tests/live/test_all_endpoints.py') that implies a use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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