Get send

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes the non-obvious access constraint that only the caller's own Sends are visible, but says nothing about what is returned (metadata vs. encrypted payload) or behavior on a Send owned by another user.

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 short sentence with the ownership qualifier up front and no filler. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and no documented params, one sentence is not enough. An agent cannot tell whether the result includes the decrypted content, whether access requires the Send's access token, or what the wrapper parameters do.

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 send_id has an empty definition, yet the description only implies 'id' meaning. The other three parameters (form, params, json_body) receive no explanation at all in either the schema or the description, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Get one ... Send') plus an ownership scope ('the caller's own'), which distinguishes it from admin variants. It does not name the sibling list tool (vaultwarden_get_sends) or download_send explicitly, so the singularity is only implied by 'one' and 'by id'.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus vaultwarden_get_sends (listing) or vaultwarden_download_send (fetching content). The agent must infer from the tool name that this retrieves metadata for a single Send.

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