get_secret

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the retrieval action without confirming read-only nature, error handling, output format, or security context. This leaves the agent to infer safety, which is a significant gap for a secret retrieval tool.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no waste. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool, the combination of description and schema covers the essentials, but the lack of annotations, output schema, and behavioral details (e.g., errors, return format) leaves moderate gaps. It's functional but not fully complete.

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 input schema fully describes the path parameter (100% coverage), and the description's 'by path' reinforces this without adding new semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' with the resource 'secret's content' and scope 'from gopass by path,' clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_secrets (listing) and generate_password (creating). The intent is unambiguous.

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 usage when you know the secret's path ('by path'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over list_secrets or search_secrets, nor does it mention exclusions. The guidance is only implicit.

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