get-secret

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name, such as secret import resolution, reference expansion, default path behavior, or not-found behavior, contributing nothing beyond what annotations already provide.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, communicating the core action efficiently. It is concise rather than verbose, though it leans toward under-specification rather than informative brevity.

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 a rich schema (100% coverage) and annotations covering safety, the description doesn't need to restate parameters. However, it omits guidance on return values and alternative selection, and it doesn't mention the default secretPath or import/reference behaviors that affect results. Adequate for a simple read tool but with clear gaps.

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 all six parameters have descriptions in the input schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a secret in Infisical'), clearly identifying a read operation for a single secret. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from list-secrets or mention scoping parameters like project/environment/path, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use get-secret versus sibling tools such as list-secrets, create-secret, or update-secret. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or use-case context, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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