get_secret_storage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations — no mention of what is returned, whether access is permission-gated, or what happens for a nonexistent id.

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 very short sentences, front-loaded and free of padding. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no annotation gaps closed, the description leaves the agent without knowledge of what a 'secret storage' contains or how to interpret the response. For a lookup tool the minimum bar would include return shape or at least a note that it returns a single storage object.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. The path template hints that project_id and storage_id are both identifiers in a path, but neither's meaning, type, or constraints (both are integers with minimum 1) is explained.

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 restates the tool name and adds the HTTP route 'GET /project/{project_id}/secret_storages/{storage_id}', which implies a single-resource fetch scoped to a project. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as list_secret_storages or get_secret_storage_references, so an agent gets only a vague sense of purpose.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_secret_storages, get_secret_storage_references, or update_secret_storage. The route implicitly suggests 'use when you have a specific storage_id', but this is never made explicit.

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