secret_env_setup

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

readOnlyHint=true is already given, but the description adds substantial context beyond it: secrets never traverse the server, the agent must write the restricted-permission file itself, and the values stay out of the sbatch script, local registry, and conversation. This is genuinely useful security-model disclosure.

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 tight sentences with the core constraint (values never transit the server) front-loaded, and every sentence carries information. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the security concept is well covered. However, for a tool whose only parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, the definition leaves a real gap in how the agent should actually call it.

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 has one parameter (`name`, default 'secrets.env') with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it at all. It references `secret_env_file`, but that is a submit_job parameter, not this tool's, so the sole argument is left entirely undocumented.

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 recognizable verb+resource combination ('explique et prepare le stockage des variables sensibles pour les jobs') that clearly demarcates it from siblings like write_remote_file or submit_job. The word 'prepare' is slightly vague about what the tool actually produces, but the security-centered intent is unmistakable.

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?

Tells the agent when this applies (handling tokens/passwords for jobs) and ties the workflow to submit_job's `secret_env_file` sourcing at startup. It does not name an explicit alternative 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.