view_secret

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Retrieve') and URI format, but does not mention whether the secret is returned in plaintext, any security implications, or error handling for missing fields. This is adequate for a simple read but lacks deeper behavioral context, especially for a secret-sensitive tool.

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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence states the action, then the URI format, field list, and example. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Description is nearly complete for a simple retrieval tool: explains URI construction and valid fields. The only gaps are the lack of error-handling details and a potential ambiguity with the sibling get_totp tool, since totp is listed as a field here. This could confuse an agent about which tool to use for TOTP, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it defines the URI structure (pass://<vault-name>/<item-name>/<field>), enumerates valid field names (username, password, email, url, note, totp, custom), and provides a concrete example. This gives the agent complete guidance for constructing the uri parameter, far exceeding the schema's generic description.

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 tool's action: 'Retrieve a specific field value from an item using a pass:// URI.' It specifies the resource (item field) and distinguishes from siblings like view_item (whole item) and get_totp (TOTP-focused). The verb 'retrieve' is specific and the URI format clarifies scope.

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 tool's use case is clear: when you need a single field value, identified by a pass:// URI. It implies this is the tool for targeted retrieval, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for full item use view_item'). Thus it falls short of explicit when-not guidance but still provides clear context.

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