analyze_secrets

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 states 'Read-only; uses the most recent ~500 audit events.' This discloses mutability and scope of data used. A 5 would require more detail on failure modes or rate limits, but this is sufficient.

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 concise: four sentences total, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits (read-only, event limit), and even outlines the return format structure. This is complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. The description remains at a high-level usage 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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Cross-reference the secrets in scope with recent audit events to produce a usage profile and rotation/retirement suggestions.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'health_check' and 'audit_log' by stating their different purposes.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use as a quarterly hygiene check or as input to a planner that decides what to rotate or delete.' It also provides alternatives: 'prefer health_check for decay-only triage and audit_log to inspect access timelines for one key.'

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