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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns recent entries, that the source log is tamper-evident, and what fields an entry contains. It does not explicitly discuss ordering, permissions, or read-only guarantees, but the audit-tail nature and field list make the behavior reasonably transparent.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that immediately states the resource and the most important properties of the returned entries. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant 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?

Given the simple two-optional-parameter contract and a fully documented schema, the description covers everything needed for both selection and correct invocation. It explains what the tool does, what an entry includes, and the recent-history nature of the result.

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?

Both parameters (ref and limit) are already fully described in the input schema, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The description reinforces the overall audit-log scope but does not go beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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 identifies the exact resource: recent entries from the tamper-evident audit log, and enumerates the kinds of information the entries contain. It is easily distinguished from the sibling tools because it is about audit history, not secret lookup, provider listing, HTTP calls, or command execution.

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 use case is clearly implied: the agent should use this when it needs recent audit log entries about credential use, capability, target host/command, and allow/deny results. It does not explicitly name alternatives or define when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is not ambiguous.

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

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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses that the credential is attached by keywarden and invisible to the caller, that the host must be allow-listed, that redirects are not followed, and that non-HTTP requests are rejected. This exceeds the typical transparency and preempts common failure modes, giving the agent a realistic picture of runtime 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?

Four concise sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with critical behavioral constraints. Every clause adds unique value—no redundant or fluff content—making it easy to parse and highly digestible.

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?

The description covers authentication, host authorization, redirects, and HTTPS enforcement, which are the most critical behavioral aspects. However, since there is no output schema, the absence of any mention of response format or error handling is a minor gap—an agent might wonder what the tool returns. Still, for a generic HTTP client, the description is largely sufficient.

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 documents all parameters with 100% coverage (ref, url, body, method, headers, timeout_ms). The description adds general behavioral context (auth, host restrictions) but does not elaborate on parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage without adding parametric nuance.

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 makes an authenticated HTTPS request using a vaulted credential. It differentiates itself from sibling tools (audit_tail, list_secrets, etc.) by focusing on outgoing requests, and the scope is crisply defined: a single request with auth handled internally. The verb 'Make' plus the resource 'authenticated HTTPS request' is specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use the tool, emphasizing the need for a vaulted credential and an allowed host, and explicitly notes restrictions (redirects not followed, non-HTTPS refused). It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but given the distinct sibling tools, the context is sufficient. A minor deduction for not explicitly contrasting with alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'list' strongly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, which is a core behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly confirm a read-only nature, nor does it disclose any network calls, authentication dependencies, or failure modes, leaving some uncertainty.

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 a single sentence that moves from the general operation to specific examples and output attributes. It is highly compact, with no redundant words. Every phrase adds value, and the essential 'List known provider presets' is front-loaded.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description takes responsibility for defining what is returned; it does so by naming permitted hosts, expected field names, and environment variable mappings. It also adds a practical use-case with clear context. It does not mention edge cases like empty providers or exact formatting, but these are not strongly demanded for such a simple read-only tool.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to describe. The description correctly focuses on the operation and its output without mentioning input requirements. According to the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 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 explicitly states the verb ('List'), the resource ('provider presets'), and the output contents ('allowed hosts, expected field names, and env-var mappings'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling secret-related tools by focusing on the provider domain. There is no tautology; it goes beyond merely restating the tool name.

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 a clear when-to-use signal: 'Useful before asking the user to add a new credential.' This grounds the tool as a prerequisite step in a credential-adding workflow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the given context is sufficient for most cases.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meaningfully discloses that the tool only returns metadata and never credential values. It also surfaces the output fields and last-use flag, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention edge behaviors such as pagination or permission failures, but those are minor for this tool.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the main action and output format, then add the critical safety note and a usage cue. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a simple optional-filter list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return shape, the read-only metadata behavior, and the intended starting point. The schema covers the parameters, and no critical calling information is missing.

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%: both optional filters already have clear descriptions in the schema (filter by tag, filter by provider). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline 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?

Describes a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every credential in the vault'), and explains the metadata-only output fields (ref, provider, description, field names, last used). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly disclaiming credential values, so an agent can tell it apart from describe_secret.

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 phrase 'Start here' gives a clear entry-point cue for exploring the vault, and the metadata-only behavior makes it appropriate for discovery before retrieving a single secret. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the no-shell execution model, the need to pass arguments as an array, and the key credential-masking behavior. It does not mention exit-code or error-handling behavior, but the most important safety-relevant traits are surfaced.

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 sentences deliver the core behavior, execution model, and output masking with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The schema documents all seven parameters in detail, and the description covers the core execution semantics and output privacy behavior. It stops the short of explicitly describing the full output contract, such as stdout/stderr or exit-code handling, but for its complexity the definition is still reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the structured parameter descriptions already handle most meaning. The prose adds marginal clarification by tying 'inject' to environment variables and 'args' to the no-shell array convention, but it does not substantially go beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: run a local command with vaulted credentials injected as environment variables. It gives concrete examples (aws, terraform, gh, psql) and clearly positions itself as a local command runner, distinguishing it from the secret-management and HTTP sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: running local CLIs or scripts that need injected secrets. It does not explicitly state exclusions or compare against siblings, but the 'local command' framing and examples make the intended use obvious.

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