reveal_credentials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool exposes the most sensitive data (plaintext passwords) and sets an explicit invocation gate, a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not discuss authorization, logging, or error behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Three short lines with a clear front-loaded purpose followed by a critical gate note. Every sentence serves to clarify the tool's sensitive nature, with no redundant content.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides crucial usage context that helps an agent decide to invoke it. The main gap is the undocumented scan_id, but sibling tools likely provide this identifier. The sensitivity gate is well-covered, making it mostly complete.

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%, and the description does not explain scan_id beyond referencing 'a scan'. The name and context imply scan_id identifies the scan, but no format, source, or validation details are given. The description must compensate for the sparse schema and largely fails to do so.

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 'Return' and specific resource 'leaked-credentials dossier', clarifying it provides plaintext passwords. It distinguishes from sibling tools by labeling it the explicit gate for the most sensitive output, separating it from get_report or list_scans.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: only call when the user clearly asked for actual leaked credentials. This implies when not to use it (e.g., if a user only wants a summary) and frames the tool as a gated operation.

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