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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses the two-phase flow (first call without request_id returns a link to show the user; second call with request_id blocks and writes the file), the 600 file permissions, and the return content ('only contains names and lengths, never a value'). This is substantive disclosure beyond any structured field.

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 front-loaded with the primary use case and prohibition before moving to the mechanics and result format, and each sentence carries information. It is somewhat long for a single tool, but the two-phase flow justifies most of the length.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by describing the return value and the blocking behavior. The main gap is ttl_seconds semantics (expiry of the request), which is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 80%, and the description adds genuine meaning beyond it by explaining the two-phase semantics of request_id (absent on the first call, supplied on the second) and clarifying that file/env_file receive the secret values. It does not explain ttl_seconds, which is the parameter with no schema description.

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 verb+resource pair ('asks the user for one or more secrets and writes them into a .env file or a file') and adds a distinguishing mechanism ('without the values ever passing through this conversation') that separates it from siblings like send_secret or run_with_secret. An agent can tell what this does and why it differs without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a clear trigger ('Use this whenever you need a password, token, API key or other secret from the user') with concrete examples, plus a strong prohibition ('Never ask the user to type or paste a secret into the chat'). It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives explicitly, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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 behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: two-phase handshake (first call returns a link, second call with request_id waits and executes), the security model (user sees the command before entering anything, only that command receives the values), and the return shape (exit code plus output with every value masked).

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 critical 'when to use this' guidance is front-loaded in the first sentence and the two-phase flow is laid out in sequence. Slightly repetitive in restating the secret concept across the trigger examples and the summary sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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, the description compensates by explaining the return values and the asynchronous request_id flow completely. The only gap is that ttl_seconds is undocumented in both the schema description and the description text.

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 80%, so the schema documents most fields itself. The description adds real meaning beyond it by explaining the request_id lifecycle ('call again with the returned request_id') and that names drives which secrets the user is prompted for, though ttl_seconds and cwd get no added context.

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 verb and resource: it asks the user for secrets and runs exactly one command with them as environment variables. It is instantly distinguishable from a plain secret-request tool because it executes a command, though it never names the sibling tools request_secret or send_secret to make the boundary explicit.

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?

Strong trigger condition is given ('use this whenever a single command needs a password, token, API key') plus a hard rule ('never ask the user to type or paste a secret into the chat'). It stops short of stating when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for the non-command case.

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 does so well: generation is local, the value is encrypted on this machine, only a one-time link is returned that shows the value once, the value never appears in chat, and the same value is routed to env_file/file/command destinations. It even discloses that command output returns with the value masked.

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?

It is a dense single paragraph that front-loads the usage trigger and routing rule before the mechanics, which is the right ordering. For an 11-parameter tool this length is justified, though a couple of clauses ('never write one into the chat', 'shows the value once') restate the same security point.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description explicitly covers the return shape ('the link, its expiry and the length, never the value'), which is exactly what the agent needs. Combined with the generation/encryption/destination behavior, nothing material is missing for correct 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema lacks: the default is 32 letters and digits unless length or charset override it, name is required except for file, and the same value flows to every destination. It does not document every parameter (e.g. cwd, ttl_seconds defaults are left to the schema), keeping it at 4.

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 verb and resource: it generates, takes, encrypts and returns a one-time link for a password/token/API key. It is clear about what the tool produces, but it never names or contrasts with its siblings request_secret and run_with_secret, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the description alone.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('whenever the user asks you to generate, create or send them a password, token, API key'), concrete examples including a non-English one, and a firm negative rule ('Do not generate a secret any other way and never write one into the chat'). It stops short of naming alternative tools, so it does not reach a 5.

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