reveal_secret

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 does signal that this is a sensitive plaintext disclosure gated by authorisation and limited to one field at a time, which is real added context. However it says nothing about audit logging, whether the caller's identity is recorded, what happens on unauthorised access, or latency/secrets-manager behaviour.

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 short sentences, the purpose verb first, with no filler. It could be tightened slightly ('authorised task' is vague), but it is front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 sensitive-value reveal with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage on three params, the description is thin: it does not explain how the secret is identified (id_or_name naming rules), what space_id does, or what the returned value looks like for non-scalar fields such as SSH keys. Adequate to identify intent, insufficient for confident invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the domain of the `field` parameter (valid values: username, password, SSH key, notes, custom fields), which is genuinely useful. But `id_or_name` (the required param) and `space_id` are given no semantics, and nothing says whether `field` defaults to a specific field when null.

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?

States a specific verb ('reveal') and a scoped resource ('one field' of a secret), and enumerates the field types (username, password, SSH key, notes, custom). This implicitly separates it from get_secret_metadata (metadata vs. actual value) and search_secrets, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'for an authorised task' hints at a permission precondition and 'Explicitly' hints at an intentional single-field disclosure, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no routing to get_secret_metadata or search_secrets for the non-revealing cases.

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