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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the value is decrypted and returned as plaintext and flags sensitivity ('handle with care'), but it omits whether access requires specific permissions, whether reads are audited, and what happens when the secret is missing or undecryptable.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the cautionary note second. The 'Returns the plaintext value' clause partly restates what the output schema covers, but the security warning earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, for a secrets-retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, the description leaves meaningful gaps around access requirements, failure modes for missing or restricted secrets, and workspace scoping behavior.

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 coverage is 50%: the workspace parameter is documented in the schema, but 'name' has no description anywhere. The phrase 'by name' confirms name is the lookup key, yet adds no detail on naming conventions, path syntax, or case sensitivity, so it only marginally compensates for the gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve and decrypt a secret ... by name') and states the scope ('this account's vault'), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like wyrm_vault_list, wyrm_vault_put, and wyrm_vault_delete without opening their schemas. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or contrasting behavior.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named; the agent must infer that this is the read path for a known secret key. The only hint is the implicit 'by name' lookup, which is not framed as usage guidance.

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