Ask the person for credentials

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

Annotations only cover openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the real burden and delivers: values flow browser-to-destination directly, the agent never sees secret values, only names/statuses/counts/ids/fingerprints. It also discloses the return shape and the URL fallback path.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then behavior, return shape, and restrictions; every sentence carries information. It is dense but not padded, though slightly long.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the workflow around it, plus safety constraints. The remaining gap is the parameter-level detail of fields and destination, which the description leaves to an undocumented schema.

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 0% across 5 parameters with nested objects, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at the field content (API keys/tokens/passwords) and the destination concept, but never explains the fields item shape (name/label/kind/help/options/pattern/required), destination formats, or the metadata expiry/rotation options.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it opens a LOCAL page at 127.0.0.1 for a person to type API keys, tokens or passwords. The scope (human-facing credential capture) is unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings like secret_write and secret_list.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use these tools instead of asking the person to paste secrets in chat, call secret_wait when the client cannot open the URL, and reference stored names later as ${secret:name}. It also gives negative guidance (do not read the stores or .env files).

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