secret_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical context: secret data is never returned (Spec.Data write-only) and that a swarm manager is required. This goes beyond annotations and avoids misleading the agent.

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 and prerequisite, then limitation, usage guidance, parameter explanation, and return description. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with key information.

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 simple inspect tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (attrs excluding secret data), examples of fields (CreatedAt, Labels, driver), and a limitation (no server-side filter for services). No 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'id_or_name' (string). The description compensates by explaining the parameter: 'args: id_or_name - The secret id or name', adding meaning beyond the raw type. A score of 4 is appropriate as it adds value but could include format hints.

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 the tool's function: 'Get a swarm secret's metadata by id or name'. It distinguishes from sibling inspect tools (config_inspect, container_inspect) by specifying the resource type and from other secret tools (create, list, remove) by noting it returns metadata only.

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?

Explicitly guides when to use: 'Use this to check a secret's CreatedAt, Labels, or which driver created it, not to read its contents.' Also provides alternative for seeing service references: 'inspect each service's spec via service_inspect'. No ambiguous or missing guidance.

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