Contract Testing: Get Secret

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful value by clarifying that this returns 'metadata' for the secret rather than the secret value itself, which is an important behavioral nuance for a tool named get_secret. No contradictions 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 core description is concise and front-loaded, but the explicit 'Parameters' section duplicates the input schema. The 'Toolset: Secrets' heading and the parameter block are somewhat redundant, though they do not make the description bloated.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the operation, the identifier type, and the return scope (metadata). Slightly more detail about what metadata fields are returned would be useful, but it is not essential for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description's parameter text merely repeats the schema's 'UUID of the secret' without adding format, source, or usage nuance. This meets the baseline but adds no additional semantic value 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 precise verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('metadata for a specific secret'), and the required identifier ('by UUID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_secrets (retrieving multiple secrets) and create/update/delete_secret (mutating secrets).

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 intended usage is implied by the description: use this when you have a secret's UUID and need its metadata. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like list_secrets, nor any exclusion conditions, so the guidance is only implicit.

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