Type Stored Secret

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-persistence behavior, but omits important details such as risk acknowledgment (ackRisks parameter), what the tool returns (output schema exists but not described), and any side effects like clearing the secret after use. This is insufficient for a security-sensitive operation.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it could include a bit more detail (e.g., mentioning ackRisks) without becoming verbose.

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 the complexity of the tool (security-sensitive, requires a stored secret) and the existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites like having stored the secret with tb_secret_store, how to obtain the session, or that risk acknowledgment may be needed. The output schema is not described but that is acceptable per guidelines.

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 coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. For example, 'targetRef' is described in schema as 'The sensitive field reference that should receive the stored secret.' The description does not elaborate further.

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 specific verb 'Type' and the resource 'a previously stored daemon secret into a sensitive field', and includes an important non-persistence guarantee. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tb_type (which types non-secret text) and tb_secret_store (which stores secrets).

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 implies when to use this tool (to input a stored secret without persisting). The sibling tool list provides context for alternatives (e.g., tb_type for non-secret, tb_secret_store for storing). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide exclusion criteria.

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