Read a KV secret

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: versioning support for KV v2, and auto-detection of kv_version. No contradictions. Minor missing details like error handling or auth requirements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. Highly concise and clear.

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?

With an output schema present (not shown but indicated), explanation of return values is unnecessary. The description covers versioning, mount/path format, and kv_version auto-detection. Missing error behavior but acceptable for a read operation. Completeness is high given available context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining version parameter semantics ('specific historical version; omit for latest') and clarifying mount/path formatting. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('key/value data stored at a secret path in a Vault KV engine'). It distinguishes between KV v1 and v2 regarding version, and the tool is distinct from siblings like vault_kv_list and vault_kv_read_metadata.

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 explains when to use the version parameter for KV v2 but does not explicitly guide the agent on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., vault_kv_read_metadata for metadata, vault_kv_list for listing). Implicit context is provided but no clear when-not or alternatives.

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