Share Secret

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses several key behaviors: the link is time-limited and read-only, the returned shareToken can retrieve the secret without authentication, and a paid tier is required. This goes well beyond a bare 'Create a share link' and covers the most important 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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The main action and return value are front-loaded, the access requirement is stated last, and every phrase adds useful information.

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?

The description covers the essential facts needed to call the tool: what it does, what it returns (shareToken), and the Builder+ tier requirement. The schema covers parameter details. It does not explicitly say the secret must already exist, but that is implied by 'for a secret' and is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (name, scope, maxReads, expiresInSeconds). The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does hint at 'time-limited' and 'read-only', which loosely map to expiresInSeconds and the nature of the share, but not specifically.

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 identifies the action ('Create'), the resource ('share link for a secret'), and the core outcome ('Returns a shareToken'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_secret or delete_secret by focusing on share-link creation, though it does not explicitly name a competing sibling.

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 clearly states the intended use case: creating a time-limited, read-only share link. It also provides a prerequisite ('Requires Builder+ tier'), which helps the agent decide whether the tool is even callable. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, 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.