get_vault_metadata

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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the exact returned field set and, critically, the fields that are deliberately withheld. That security-relevant disclosure is the kind of behavioral context an agent cannot infer from structured data.

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 tight sentences: capability first, return contents second, exclusions and alternatives last. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the withheld ones, and it names the escape hatches for secrets. There is nothing further an agent needs in order to call this correctly.

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 100%, and the schema already documents that 'name' must be the exact, case-sensitive vault name. The description adds only 'named vault item', which contributes no syntax or matching detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get full metadata for a named vault item') and immediately enumerates exactly which fields come back. It also carves out the secret-reading territory by pointing at reveal_secret_via_send and get_totp_code, so an agent can separate it from the siblings without opening a schema.

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?

It gives a clear negative boundary ('Password, TOTP seed, api-key values and note contents are NEVER returned') and routes the agent to the correct alternatives for those cases, including the exact field name for notes. It does not say when to reach for this versus list_vault_items, so the enumeration-vs-single-item choice is left implicit.

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