Get cipher admin

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting it returns admin-view fields and bypasses normal access restrictions, which tells the agent this is an elevated read requiring org admin privilege. It does not describe response shape or edge cases, but annotations carry much of that burden.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key distinguishing detail (admin-view, org admin bypass) is placed immediately after the core action.

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, the description is too thin. It clarifies the admin/read nature but does not compensate for the completely undocumented input parameters, so an agent cannot confidently supply form, params, or json_body.

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%, and the description only implies that a single cipher is identified (likely via cipher_id). It says nothing about the other three parameters (form, params, json_body), leaving most of the input surface unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one cipher') and clearly qualifies it as the admin-view variant, which distinguishes it from sibling get_cipher tools. It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling, but the admin qualifier is sufficient for an agent to understand the core purpose.

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 parenthetical 'org admin bypassing normal access' implies the tool is for org administrators who need elevated fields, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_cipher or get_cipher_details, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites beyond the admin hint.

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