Receive a requested secret

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that vercel_env/dotenv writes without revealing the value, that 'return' exposes the value and must not be repeated, and that wait_seconds can yield a pending status requiring another call. It does not cover permission requirements, overwrite behavior, or what happens to the secret afterward, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: precondition, preferred destination behavior, restricted return behavior, and wait/pending handling. The precondition is front-loaded, and there is 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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential calling context: when to invoke, destination semantics, secret-handling constraints, and async/pending behavior. Gaps remain around failure modes, permissions, and overwrite semantics, but the schema fills in most parameter detail.

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 high at 89%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the key destination parameter by explaining the practical effect of each enum value, and it explains wait_seconds in terms of pending status. Other parameters are left to the already-rich schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: collect and deliver a requested secret after the user submits an ncrypted_request. The destination modes clarify what 'deliver' means. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ncrypted_to_vercel_env or ncrypted_to_dotenv, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives a clear precondition ('After the user says they've submitted an ncrypted_request') and guidance on destination choice, including a preferred path (vercel_env/dotenv) and a restrictive when-not for 'return'. It also explains retry behavior for pending status. It does not name or route among sibling tools, leaving some alternative selection implicit.

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