Run a command with secrets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behaviors: redacted output, exit code, and that secret values are never exposed to the model. This is critical security context. It does not cover error handling or environment details, but the core transparency is strong.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy: purpose, output, and security guarantee. Each sentence adds distinct value, and the core action is front-loaded. This is efficient and well-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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and safety promise. It omits details like failure modes or how secrets map to environment variable names, but an agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly. Slightly above average due to the security-focused completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'secretNames' by explaining they are injected as environment variables, and 'command' is self-evident. However, it does not mention 'args' at all, leaving that parameter undocumented. The description partially compensates but not fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('run'), clearly identifies the resource ('command with named secrets'), and distinguishes itself from sibling secret-management tools by focusing on execution with injected secrets. It also states the output behavior (exit code, redacted output), making the purpose unmistakable.

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: use this when you need to run a command with secrets without exposing them. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the security guarantee ('never exposed to the model') suggests it is the safe choice over manually retrieving secrets. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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