vault_get_secret

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the default return shape (an opaque {{vault:sec_<ulid>}} handle) and that plaintext reveal is blocked absent break-glass and human confirmation. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether the access is audited, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the default behavior is front-loaded and the exception follows immediately.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description usefully explains the returned surrogate handle. For a security-sensitive read tool with no annotations it is nearly complete, missing only auth/audit expectations and how a confirmation token is obtained.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies secretId semantics (sec_<ulid> form) and implicitly maps 'break-glass policy' and 'out-of-band human confirmation' onto breakGlassReason and confirmationToken, but never names or formats those parameters, leaving a real gap.

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 precise verb and resource: resolve a secret by its sec_<ulid> identifier and return a surrogate handle. That is specific enough to separate it from vault_lease_secret or vault_search, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives a conditional gate on the raw-plaintext path (break-glass policy plus out-of-band human confirmation), which is useful when-not guidance. But it offers no explicit routing versus alternatives like vault_lease_secret or vault_prompt_secret_oob, so the usage context is only implied.

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