has_secret

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

Discloses read-only nature, no audit log recording, decay-awareness (returns false for expired secrets), and exact return format ('true' or 'false'). Since no annotations provided, description carries full burden and meets it excellently.

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?

Description is well-structured with front-loaded purpose, usage guidance, alternative suggestion, behavioral notes, and return format. Each sentence adds unique value, no 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?

With 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers core behavior, return type, audit implications, decay-awareness, and usage scenario, making it fully informative for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds context but no new parameter details beyond schema. The example of 'GITHUB_TOKEN' and explanation of scope are present in schema already.

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 clearly states the tool checks secret existence without reading the value, specifying the verb 'check' and resource 'secret existence'. It distinguishes from sibling `inspect_secret`, which provides metadata.

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 recommends use as a cheap precondition before read/write, with an example of skipping prompts. Also suggests preferring `inspect_secret` when metadata is needed. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.

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