get_vault_metadata

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

Despite annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already indicating a safe read-only operation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it enumerates the exact metadata fields returned and explicitly states that sensitive values (password, TOTP seed, api-key) are never included. This is a significant transparency addition beyond the annotations, with no contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and return list, followed by a clear exclusion and alternative. Every word earns its place, with zero redundancy or filler.

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 fully carries the burden of explaining return values and limitations. It comprehensively covers what is returned, what is never returned, and directs to appropriate sibling tools. For the tool's simplicity, this is complete and actionable.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'name' parameter, including case-sensitivity and exact match semantics. The description does not add further parameter-level detail beyond referencing a 'named vault item,' so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Get full metadata for a named vault item.' It lists specific returned fields (name, type, username, URIs, custom fields, scope, expiry) and explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools by noting secrets are not returned. This is a specific verb+resource with strong sibling differentiation.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance by naming alternatives: 'use reveal_secret_via_send or get_totp_code instead' for password, TOTP seed, and api-key values. It also states what the tool does not return, giving clear exclusions. This goes beyond a simple context hint to full usage direction.

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