get_secret_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states that secret values are NOT returned, a critical security behavior, and specifies the metadata fields. It does not mention authentication or error behaviors, but for a read-only metadata fetch, this is substantial transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds a crucial caveat. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned and what is not. There is no output schema to explain, and the parameter semantics are partially handled by the schema defaults. It is complete enough for a metadata getter, though it could briefly note that it operates on a single named secret.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation, but it does not mention any parameters at all. The parameter names (name, namespace, cluster_alias) are self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning regarding how they are used or formatted, leaving a clear gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'Secret metadata' and enumerates exactly what is included (type, keys, labels). It explicitly differentiates itself from list_secrets by focusing on metadata for a single secret, and the warning that values are NOT returned further 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 description clearly conveys that this tool is for retrieving metadata only, not secret values, implying use when metadata is needed without sensitive data. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., list_secrets) or provide when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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