vault_exec

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

With no annotations, the description adds significant behavioral context: server-side address/token injection, JSON output, and secret redaction ('Значения секретов вырезаются'). It omits the __confirm requirement for mutating operations (only in schema), but the redaction and credential handling are valuable disclosures.

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 well-structured: purpose, constraints, examples, and output behavior in three tight paragraphs. The examples are relevant and not excessive, earning their place.

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?

For a generic command executor, it covers execution scope, authentication precondition, output format, and secret safety. The missing confirmation flow is covered in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for this tool.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The description's examples ('kv get', 'kv put') show how to structure args arrays, but they add practical value rather than deep semantic meaning 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?

The description clearly states it executes vault commands on behalf of the logged-in user ('Выполнить команду vault ... от имени вошедшего пользователя'), which distinguishes it from sibling auth tools. Examples like 'kv get' and 'policy read' illustrate the supported operations.

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 specifies a precondition: login via vault_login ('вход делается через vault_login'), and prohibits certain flags (-address, -tls-skip-verify). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but sibling tools are clearly auth-only, leaving vault_exec as the execution counterpart.

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