agentsecure.secret.status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and explains the return shape, including exists, env_name, and conditional source/provider/mode metadata. It also states that no secret value is returned, though it does not explicitly discuss read-only safety, permissions, or rate limits.

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 the core purpose and then efficiently covers return values, exclusions, the relevant alternative tool, and a concise example. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation guidance.

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?

Given the low-complexity, one-parameter lookup and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description supplies enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers purpose, return fields, exclusions, and the sibling alternative without requiring further inference.

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 already fully documents the single env_name parameter, including that it must be exact, without ${...}, and not an alias ID or secret value. The description reinforces this with an example but adds little semantic information beyond the 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: checking whether an environment name is assigned in the current project's secret configuration before using its placeholder. It clearly distinguishes this from a vault-value or credential-validity check and names the sibling tool for listing all aliases and bindings.

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 explicit usage context: use this before referencing a ${ENV_NAME} placeholder, and use agentsecure.policy.describe when you need to list all configured aliases and bindings. It also clarifies what the tool is not for, namely vault-value lookup or credential-validity checking.

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