Get Secret

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it revealss decryption behavior, the null-when-not-found edge case, and tier-gated version retrieval. It stops short of stating authorization requirements or what the default version is (presumably latest), but covers the key behavioral traits for a simple read tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause earns its place: 'Retrieve and decrypt', null-not-found, and version support. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior: what it does, the not-found edge case, and version handling. Minor gaps like default version behavior and how this differs from get_shared_secret are not addressed, but they do not prevent correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the version tier detail already present in the schema but adds no new meaning for either parameter beyond behavior like null-return, which is behavioral rather than parameter-level information.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve and decrypt a secret value by name.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by naming the operation (retrieve+decrypt) and its scope (by name), distinguishing it from set_secret, list_secrets, delete_secret, and get_shared_secret without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied through the purpose — you use this to get a named secret's value — and the version/tier note provides some context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like get_shared_secret, inject_secrets, or list_secrets, nor any exclusions.

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