secret_inspect

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses that `Spec.Data` is write-only and never returned, and that there is no server-side filter for services using the secret. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations do not capture.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by a necessary caveat and focused usage guidance. The args/returns block is compact, and every sentence adds substantive information without digression.

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 single-parameter readonly inspection tool, the description covers what is returned, what is excluded, the operational prerequisite, and the relevant alternative approach. Even without an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has one parameter with no description, but the description includes 'args: id_or_name - The secret id or name', fully explaining the parameter. It also clarifies that both ID and name are accepted, which is valuable semantic information.

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 'Get a swarm secret's metadata by id or name', which is a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like secret_create, secret_list, and secret_remove by focusing on inspection of metadata rather than creation, listing, or removal.

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 description explicitly says when to use the tool ('check CreatedAt, Labels, or which driver created it') and when not to use it ('not to read its contents'). It also names the alternative `service_inspect` for finding services that reference a secret, and notes the prerequisite of a swarm manager.

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