Get cipher

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as error behavior for unknown ids or whether the cipher is returned decrypted or still encrypted.

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?

A single six-word sentence with no filler and the key detail (by id) front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance covered in other dimensions.

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 tool with four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, one sentence is far from sufficient. An agent cannot tell what form/params/json_body mean or how the returned cipher is shaped, so the definition leaves real 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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, yet it only mentions the id implicitly. Three of the four parameters (form, params, json_body) are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving their purpose entirely opaque.

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 and resource ("Get one cipher") and scopes it to a single item by id, so the basic action is unambiguous. However, the sibling set contains several near-identical retrieval tools (vaultwarden_get_cipher_details, vaultwarden_get_cipher_admin, vaultwarden_ciphers_get_item), and the description does nothing to distinguish this one from them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other cipher-retrieval siblings or when to use the list variant instead. The agent must guess based on names alone, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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