Keychain secret

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

While annotations already mark destructiveHint and idempotentHint, the description goes further by disclosing privacy properties (CRBRO keeps no copy, invents no crypto, no sync or team space can reach the store), special return behavior (missing secret returns found:false, not an error), and operational rules (never print the value back unless asked; set rejects empty values; status with no store is normal). No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core resource and action, and every sentence contributes either an action behavior, a boundary condition, or a security rule. It is slightly long and semicolon-heavy, but it earns its length given the multi-action nature of the tool, so it is not padded.

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 multi-action secret-store tool with no output schema and a destructive remove action, the description covers all operational requirements: what each action does, what inputs are needed, edge cases, environment-variable precedence, naming conventions, and privacy constraints. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke any of the five actions 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it imposes a naming convention (SCREAMING_SNAKE_CASE), explains that set updates in place and rejects empty values, and clarifies behavior of each action such as list returning names only and status indicating which store exists. It doesn't fully expand every parameter, but the schema already handles that, so this is above 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read or write credentials in the operating system's keychain,' then enumerates each action (get, set, list, remove, status). It also differentiates from sibling crbro_learn by directing that only the NAME be recorded there, so an agent can tell which tool holds the credential value versus which holds a learned name.

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 gives concrete when-to-use instructions: 'When the user hands you a credential, set it here, then record only the NAME with crbro_learn.' It specifies action semantics for every branch, clarifies that a missing secret returns found:false rather than an error, and notes that env vars of the same name win. This is explicit enough for an agent to select the correct action and companion workflow.

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