Audit Plaintext Secrets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which indicate a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Values are masked in output' and 'Does NOT decrypt encrypted values.' These disclose output handling and functional limitations, which meaningfully supplements the annotation profile. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences deliver all essential information: purpose, scope, output masking, and a key limitation. Front-loaded with the primary action ('Flags'), followed by the constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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 the presence of an output schema (which handles return-value documentation), the description fully covers the tool's behavior: what it does, what it doesn't do (decrypt), and how output is handled (masked). Optional parameters are self-explanatory via the schema. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, with both parameters ('profile' and 'magentoRoot') already well-described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the burden. No additional value is needed.

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?

Description clearly states the tool 'Flags core_config_data paths' that may contain unencrypted secrets, with a specific resource and verb. It distinguishes itself from all siblings, none of which audit plaintext secrets, and clarifies the scope (password/key/token paths). No ambiguity.

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 auditing potential plaintext secrets, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusion conditions. For example, it doesn't say 'use get_magento_config to retrieve encrypted values' or provide a comparator. Usage context is implicit but not made explicit, so a 3 is appropriate.

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