get_secret_dependencies_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the name — no mention of pagination behavior, that results are paginated via cursor, or what a dependency item represents.

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 definition is a single short phrase with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — it reads as a title fragment, not an informative description.

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?

With 4 parameters, two of them undocumented, no output schema, and no sibling routing, the description leaves significant gaps. An agent would not know how to correctly interpret the resource_type filter or paginate results from the description alone.

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%: cursor and page_size are documented in the schema, but secret_id and resource_type have no schema descriptions. The description's 'By Type' weakly implies resource_type, but it does not explain the enum values (tools/agents/phone_numbers) or that secret_id identifies the secret whose dependencies are listed.

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 verb and resource ('Get Secret Dependencies') and adds a scope qualifier ('By Type'), which hints at the resource_type filter. However, it largely restates the tool name and gives no differentiation from close siblings such as get_secret_route, get_secrets_route, or get_tool_dependent_agents_route.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_secret_route (a single secret) or the other '*dependent_agents*' tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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