Secret Validate

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by disclosing that validation sends authenticated requests to AWS/GitHub/Stripe as the key owner, explains the risk ('validation is *use*'), and details rate pacing constraints. Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which are consistent but less informative. The description adds crucial behavioral details about side effects and consent, which is excellent 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 lengthy, with a bold warning and a detailed explanation of the gating rationale and pacing. While every sentence earns its place for risk communication, it's not concise. The structure is front-loaded with the warning, which is good, but the overall length is higher than necessary for a tool with one parameter.

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 there's an output schema (so return values are covered), the description covers purpose, risk, and behavior. However, it fails to explain the input parameter 'path', which is essential for correct invocation. It also assumes the agent knows what 'candidate credentials' are and where they come from. The completeness is moderate: behavior is well covered, but input semantics are missing.

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 only parameter 'path' has a default of '.' and no schema description (coverage 0%). The description does not explain what 'path' refers to, whether it's a file path to a secrets list, a directory, or something else. With zero schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it doesn't mention the parameter at all. This is a significant gap.

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 ('validate') and resource ('candidate credentials'), and explains the purpose ('map their blast radius'). It also differentiates from siblings like secret_scan by emphasizing that validation makes a secrets report actionable, implying a post-scan step. The 'AGGRESSIVE — requires human approval' warning adds distinctive context.

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 context on when to use: after scanning, for live credential validation, and explains why it's gated. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for not using it, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it's for validating secrets rather than scanning or general validation. The warning about pacing and third-party requests further clarifies its usage.

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