describe_secret

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry some behavioral burden. It reveals what information the tool returns at a high level (proxying, hosts, env vars) but does not disclose things like whether it exposes secrets themselves, side effects, or auth requirements. It adds some value beyond the schema.

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 one clear sentence, front-loaded with the main intent and then enumerating the specific metadata categories. No waste, though it could be slightly more structured with a colon or list.

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 one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key return aspects. However, it does not mention whether it returns the secret value itself, which could be relevant for an agent deciding between this and list_secrets. That gap leaves it merely adequate.

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 covers the ref parameter with 100% coverage including an example. The description does not add further meaning beyond referring to the credential, so it doesn't push above baseline.

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: retrieving metadata for one credential and its usage characteristics. It specifies the resource (credential) and the relevant aspects (HTTP proxying, reachable hosts, environment variable mappings). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the focus is specific enough to avoid major confusion.

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 is for inspecting a credential's metadata and how it can be used. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like list_secrets, nor does it provide exclusions. Context is clear but not fully explicit.

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