_delimit_secret_impl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only says 'Manage secrets broker' and lists actions, but gives no information about behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, or that this is an internal implementation. An agent cannot assess risks or operational constraints.

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 very short and front-loaded, stating the essence in one line. Every word earns its place, though slightly more detail on actions could be included without losing conciseness.

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 has 7 parameters and numerous sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that this is the internal implementation, nor does it provide context on how it relates to the more specific sibling tools (e.g., that agents should use the dedicated tools instead). The output schema exists, but the description still lacks necessary context for safe and correct usage.

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%, with each parameter clearly described. The description adds a list of valid actions, which is partially redundant with the 'action' parameter description. It does not add new semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Manage secrets broker' and lists actions (store, get, list, revoke, access_log), so the general purpose is clear. However, it does not differentiate this internal tool from the more dedicated sibling tools (e.g., delimit_secret_store, delimit_secret_get), making it vague for an agent deciding which tool to use.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the dedicated sibling tools. The description gives no context about whether this is an internal implementation meant for programmatic use or if agents should prefer the higher-level tools. Agents are left without direction.

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