get_jumpserver_temporary_database_credential

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context by clarifying that the returned credentials are short-lived plaintext for the proxy, not the underlying database secret. It does not contradict annotations and supplements the mutation nature with important behavioral details about the output.

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 two sentences and keeps the main purpose upfront. The first sentence states the core action; the second explains parameter conditions and the nature of the return values. It is dense but efficient, with no redundancy or filler, earning a high score for structure while still being readable.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on the key behavioral context: that the returned credentials are temporary and proxy-specific, not the underlying secret. It also covers the necessary input conditions for ambiguous cases. What is missing is an explicit note on side effects or cleanup behavior, but given annotations already signal a mutable operation, this is largely sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description carries the full burden of defining parameters. It clarifies that 'asset' must be an exact name, address, or UUID, and explains when 'account' and 'protocol' should be passed explicitly (if multiple accounts/protocols are permitted). It also notes that account can be a username/UUID, providing concrete semantic guidance beyond the raw 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 action ('Create temporary database proxy credentials') and specifies the resource (temporary credentials for JumpServer database proxy). It also explicitly details what the returned connection.username and connection.password represent, distinguishing this from the sibling get_jumpserver_configured_database_credentials by the 'temporary' vs 'configured' contrast in the tool name and description.

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 gives usage conditions for parameters (e.g., pass account/protocol explicitly when multiple are permitted) and mentions the asset must be an exact name, address, or UUID, but it does not explicitly contrast when to use this tool versus the sibling tools that list databases or configured credentials. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, and no exclusion criteria are stated.

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