get_credential

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds behavior annotations cannot express: reveal=true returns raw secret values, is gated by the credential's policy, and 'may pop an approval dialog for the user.' That approval/consent side-effect is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before exposing a secret.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the risky reveal path, then the preferred alternative. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

For a 4-param read tool with no output schema and no param descriptions, the description covers the risky path (reveal), the routing alternative, and the purpose requirement. It omits what a non-reveal response contains and what `fields` filters, which are the only real gaps.

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 carries the burden and largely does: it explains the accepted forms for `ref`, the meaning of reveal=true, and the requirement to supply `purpose` when revealing. Only `fields` is left semantically unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one credential') and enumerates the accepted lookup keys (id, name, alias, URL). The word 'one' implicitly separates it from list_credentials/find_credentials, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives real routing guidance: 'Prefer http_request/run_with_credential over revealing.' It also conditions reveal on policy and mandates a purpose string. It does not address when to use this vs find_credentials/list_credentials, so it stops short of full coverage.

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