password_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that return is redacted metadata by default, that reveal=true will fail, and that script runner is disabled. This is significant behavioral context beyond the schema, though error handling for missing fields is omitted.

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 verbose with server-specific configuration details (e.g., 'restart the server with --enable-script-runner=true') that are not strictly about tool usage. While informative, it could be more concise; the first sentence is clear but the rest is dense.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the reveal and script runner constraints but does not explain required parameters, default values, output format (beyond 'redacted metadata'), or error scenarios.

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%, but the description only explains the 'reveal' parameter ('reveal=true will fail'). The other six parameters (secretReference, vaultId, itemId, field, reason, acknowledgePlaintext) are not explained, so the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool reads one password field or secret reference, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like secret_reveal by explicitly noting that plaintext reveal is disabled. The verb 'Read' and resource 'one password field' are specific.

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: it states when not to use reveal (if only consumed by script), and explains why op_script_run is unavailable with instructions to enable it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like secret_reveal for plaintext, but the context is clear.

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