password_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: returns redacted metadata by default, plaintext reveal will fail, and script runner is disabled. It also provides context about server configuration for enabling script usage. However, it does not detail error conditions or side effects like logging.

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 front-loaded with the purpose but becomes verbose, especially with the script runner configuration details, which could be condensed. It is structured but includes non-essential operational guidance that could be separated.

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 output schema and 7 parameters (0 required), the description covers core behavior and limitations but lacks details on return values (beyond 'redacted metadata'), error handling, and parameter relationships (e.g., field vs. secretReference). It is adequate but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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. It mentions 'field', 'secretReference', and 'reveal' but provides no explanation for other required parameters like 'itemId', 'vaultId', 'reason', and 'acknowledgePlaintext'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Read one password field or secret reference.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly stating that plaintext reveal is disabled and that secret_reveal is not for this, and by noting that op_script_run is not available, which differentiates from script-based consumption.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use (for reading metadata without plaintext), when not to use (do not request reveal if secret is for local script), and mentions an alternative (script runner configuration) and a limitation (script runner disabled). This fully informs agent decision-making.

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