get_user_credentials

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that it is read-only ('Reads', 'does not create a session'), which is crucial for behavioral understanding. It does not detail error handling or permissions, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a usage example, technical detail, and parameter description. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter well-described. An output schema exists (not provided), so return values need not be explained. Minor lack of error handling info, but overall sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'username' must be an exact username (email), which is not in the schema. This fully clarifies the parameter semantics.

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 resource 'credential types configured for one user', giving examples and clarifying it's for checking a single user's MFA status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_users or reset_password.

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 explicitly states to use this for checking a single user's MFA status, providing clear context. It does not give explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the use case is well-defined and sensible among the sibling tools.

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