get_secret_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens on failure (e.g., missing key). The return value is mentioned but without details on format or errors. For a tool accessing sensitive data with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 extremely concise with two short sentences that directly state the action and return value, with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded, immediately conveying the purpose. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 complexity of accessing sensitive environment variables, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., string type), error handling, or security implications. For a tool that retrieves secret keys, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an agent.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info beyond the schema, but that's appropriate here. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as the description focuses on the tool's purpose rather than compensating for missing param details.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('secret key from environment variables'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_access_key' and 'get_api_key_information' by specifying 'secret key' and 'environment variables', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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, such as 'get_access_key' or 'get_api_key_information', which are related sibling tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., environment setup) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone. No explicit when/when-not statements are present.

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