secret_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that retrieval passes identity verification and an approval gate, leaves an audit trail, and treats the secret name as a payee with a whitelist bypass option. These are meaningful behavioral traits 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?

Two compact clauses convey the core operation, gating, audit, and whitelist behavior with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the key gating and audit context, which is valuable given no annotations and no output schema. However, it does not describe the return value, error conditions such as missing secrets or denied approval, or pagination/output structure, leaving some operational uncertainty for 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds extra semantic meaning by noting the secret name is treated as a payee and can be whitelisted, which clarifies how the 'name' parameter affects approval behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('从密钥保险库取密钥'), and adds context about identity/approval gating and audit. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the spend_* siblings.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving secrets from the vault and mentions a whitelist option to skip approval, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is present but not fully articulated.

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