get_secret_for_env

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that approval is ALWAYS required regardless of preset policy, warns that the returned value must not be quoted into the reasoning trace, and routes agents toward the safer alternative. These are material security and approval behaviors beyond what the schema provides.

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 definition is front-loaded with what the tool does, then approval behavior, then alternative-tool guidance, then the secret-handling warning. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement.

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 the description need not explain return values. Given the tool's sensitivity and single required parameter, the description is complete enough: it covers purpose, approval behavior, preferred alternative, concrete use case, and handling constraints.

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 schema already documents the single `name` parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the name identifies the bound secret, but adds no further syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: reveal the raw secret value bound to a name. It also distinguishes this tool from the preferred sibling `proxy_http`, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does and when it is the wrong choice.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: prefer `proxy_http`, and only use this tool when a child process must read the secret from an environment variable, with a concrete `terraform apply` example. This is exactly the when-to-use versus when-not-to-use context an agent needs.

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