get_secret_metadata

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and it only discloses the non-disclosure of the value. It says nothing about what metadata fields are returned, whether a not-found secret errors, or what access/permission is required — notable gaps for a tool with no output 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity trends toward under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what 'metadata' means and how scoping works. It instead leaves the return contents and the space_id parameter completely undocumented.

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 0% for both parameters, and the description explains neither. Critically, the optional 'space_id' scoping parameter is not mentioned anywhere, so an agent has no way to know it must be supplied when the secret lives outside a default space.

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?

A clear verb ('inspect') plus resource ('one secret') and a scope qualifier ('without revealing its value') that separates it from reveal_secret. It never names the sibling, but an agent can infer the read-only-metadata intent.

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 'without revealing its value' implies when to choose this over reveal_secret, but no alternative is named and no preconditions (e.g., requires access to the space, errors on missing secret) are stated. Usage is only implied.

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