secrets_inject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the core behavioral trait: the agent never sees raw secrets, placeholders are substituted, and secrets are scrubbed from the response. This is significant context beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover failure modes or proxy absence behavior.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action, then adds the critical security behavior and a prerequisite. Perfectly concise and structured.

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 five parameters and nested objects, the description provides key behavioral context (injection, scrubbing, requirement) that the schema cannot. It doesn't explicitly state return format, but that is implied by an HTTP request tool. Overall, it covers the essential non-schema information well.

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%, so all parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The description adds the concept of placeholders and scrubbing but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema covers everything.

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 function: 'Make an HTTP request with vault secrets injected server-side.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the unique value proposition (agent never sees raw secrets) distinguishes it from the sibling http_request tool.

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 implies usage when an HTTP request needs secrets and the agent must not see them, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like http_request or provide when-not guidance. The requirement 'Requires secrets.proxy' is a prerequisite, not a comparison.

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