mind_vault_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It reveals two important traits — deprecation/removal and that plaintext is never returned over MCP — but omits auth requirements, error behavior, and what the tool actually returns if invoked.

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 short and front-loads the deprecation warning, which is appropriate. However, the nested parenthetical "(Explain how to retrieve a secret (never returns plaintext over MCP))" is awkward and reads more like an instruction than a structured description.

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 deprecated single-parameter tool, the description sufficiently routes the agent away to mind_vault. It is incomplete for a still-callable tool because it does not explain return values or failure modes, and there is no output schema to fill that 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single key parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not add format, syntax, or other meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific deprecated tool for retrieving a secret and explicitly points to the replacement, mind_vault(action="get"). It also notes that plaintext is never returned over MCP, which distinguishes it from a general retrieval tool. However, the fragmented deprecation-first phrasing and odd parenthetical keep it from being a fully clean purpose statement.

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?

It explicitly says the tool is deprecated, removed in v2.0, and directs the agent to use mind_vault(action="get") instead. This gives an unambiguous when-not-to-use and a concrete alternative.

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