resolve_secret

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: runtime resolution, decryption, and that the secret value is never visible in the LLM conversation transcript. This adds significant context beyond the schema. It does not cover potential errors or side effects but is sufficient for a simple read operation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a critical security detail. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous text. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential: what it does, how it works (backend-agnostic), and a key behavioral trait (invisibility). It could mention return value format or errors, but for a simple scalar retrieval, it is largely complete. The lack of output schema is compensated by stating 'Returns the decrypted value'.

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% for the single 'name' parameter. The description provides an example list of secret names but does not add meaning beyond the schema's description. According to the rubric, with high coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not merit a higher score.

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 action ('resolves a secret by name') and the resource ('secret using the configured backend'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like store_secret and delete_secret by focusing on retrieval. The verb+resource+context is specific and unambiguous.

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 for retrieving secret values but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool. It lacks guidance on alternatives among siblings (e.g., list_secrets for listing, store_secret for storing). The security note about invisibility provides some context but no clear exclusion criteria.

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