get_secret_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get detailed documentation,' implying a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose error behavior, output format, or any side effects. For a simple info retrieval tool, some transparency is expected but not provided beyond the basic 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 concise, with one sentence stating the purpose and a brief Args section. Every sentence provides useful information, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to scan. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose and parameter. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema handles that. It could mention error cases or prerequisites, but for a basic info getter, it is reasonably complete.

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 includes an 'Args' section explaining that secret_type is 'The secret type name,' adding meaning beyond the schema's plain string type. Schema coverage is 0%, so this explanation is valuable. It could be more specific (e.g., listing valid values or referencing list_available_secrets), but it adequately compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 gets detailed documentation for a specific clearskies secrets handler, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from list_available_secrets by focusing on a specific handler rather than listing available ones, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_*_info tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used when a specific secret type is known, nor does it suggest list_available_secrets for discovery. The usage context is only implied by the 'get' vs 'list' pattern in sibling tool names.

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