vault_decrypt_string

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a decryption tool with security implications, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward decryption tool and front-loads the essential 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 security-related decryption tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address authentication, error conditions, return format, or parameter requirements beyond the basic purpose. The agent would need to guess about many operational aspects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description provides no information about parameter meanings or usage. It doesn't explain what 'string' should contain, what 'vault_id' refers to, or when 'vault_password_file' is needed. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 specific action ('decrypt') and target resource ('a string encrypted with Ansible Vault'), distinguishing it from its sibling 'vault_encrypt_string'. It uses precise technical terminology that accurately conveys the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'encrypted with Ansible Vault', which suggests this tool is for decrypting strings created by that specific system. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or provide exclusions, though the sibling relationship with 'vault_encrypt_string' provides some implicit guidance.

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