get-secret

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and effectively discloses key behaviors: default injection into local files (hiding values from conversation), audit logging for reveal actions, and cleanup functionality. It doesn't mention error handling, permissions, or rate limits, but covers the main operational traits.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second explains the default and reveal option, and the third covers cleanup. Each sentence adds critical information, making it efficiently structured and 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the tool's behavior (injection, auditing, cleanup). However, it lacks details on return values or error cases, which could be important for a secret-management tool, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds context for reveal and cleanup (e.g., 'audited as conscious action'), but doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema's details, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a secret by name'), distinguishing it from siblings like list-secrets (which lists) or create-secret (which creates). It specifies the core action of retrieving a secret, making the purpose 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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use reveal:true (to see raw values) versus the default (inject mode), and includes cleanup:true for removing injected files. This covers both usage scenarios and alternatives within the tool, though it doesn't compare to other tools like list-secrets.

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