Get entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavioral traits: the vault must be unlocked and the returned entry includes sensitive values. However, it does not describe what happens if the vault is locked, error behavior, or return format, leaving some gaps for a sensitive-data 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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core behavior and adds a usage directive efficiently.

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 the simple 2-parameter tool and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned, its sensitive nature, and the prerequisite of an unlocked vault. Minor omissions like return structure and error handling are acceptable but could be enhanced.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning the parameters (vault and uuid) are already fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Returns') and identifies a precise resource ('full entry from an unlocked vault'), while explicitly mentioning sensitive field values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_password and get_otp, which target individual fields.

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 states when to use the tool ('when the user explicitly wants the credentials'), giving strong contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to alternatives like get_password or get_otp for single-field extraction.

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