wave_secret_get

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does much of it well: it discloses that the plaintext value may be withheld unless SEASHELL_ALLOW_SECRET_READ=1 and that a helper is required. It stops short of describing failure modes or what the response contains when withheld, but the key behavioral surprise is surfaced.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the gating requirements. No filler.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (a plaintext value, conditionally), the preconditions, and the dependency. It could say more about what happens on a denied read, but nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: 'approved' must be true and 'reason' must be non-empty, which is a real constraint beyond the field descriptions. That lifts it above the baseline.

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 ('Read a Wave Terminal secret') plus the security tier, which clearly separates it from wave_secret_set and wave_secret_delete. It doesn't explicitly contrast with wave_secret_list, but 'read a secret' vs. listing secrets is reasonably inferable.

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?

Gives invocation preconditions (approved=true, non-empty reason) but never says when an agent should choose this over wave_secret_list or when not to attempt a read at all. The qualification rules are clear; the routing guidance is only implied.

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