get_secret

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects: collapses superposition, writes audit log event, and potential policy denial. It lacks explicit mention of idempotency or rate limits, but for a read operation these are less critical. The disclosure is thorough and adds value beyond the 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?

The description is a single paragraph but front-loads purpose and usage, then covers side effects and return format. It is concise with no redundant sentences. A slight structure improvement (e.g., bullet points) would elevate it, but it's already clear and efficient.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings, the description covers: purpose, usage guidance, side effects, return format (`{ ok, data: { key, value } }`), and error handling. Completely fills the gaps left by structured fields.

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 each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds minimal new parameter information (e.g., the concept of 'collapse superposition' for env is partly in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Read the plaintext value of a single secret' using a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like inspect_secret, has_secret, and exec_with_secrets by naming them and contrasting their use cases. No ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when an agent needs the actual credential' and provides three alternatives with clear reasons to prefer each. Also mentions policy denial as a possible outcome, giving complete usage context.

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