Programmability Describe Secret

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for adding a meaningful guarantee: secret values are never exposed. It does not cover error behavior for nonexistent secrets or required privileges, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause carries information (returned fields, type enum, value non-exposure). Zero waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. Purpose, scope, and the no-value guarantee are all present; only failure modes and permission requirements are unaddressed, which is minor for a read-only describe tool.

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%, so all three parameters (database, schema_name, secret_name) are documented with quoting guidance in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (describe) and resource (secret), and enumerates the key returned attributes: metadata, type with concrete enum values (GENERIC_STRING, OAUTH2), and owner. An agent can distinguish it from programmability_list_secrets, but the description does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative to prefer for listing secrets. The purpose is inferable from the verb, but the agent gets no routing help.

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