Get a secret

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral guarantee: the secret value is stripped from every response, even immediately after creation. This is exactly the kind of insight an agent cannot derive from annotations or the schema.

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 with no waste: the first defines the purpose and output fields, the second prevents a critical misuse by stating that the value is never returned. The key caveat is front-loaded and clearly separated.

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 single-item read tool with a rich output schema, 100% parameter schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description supplies the one essential missing expectation—the value is never exposed—making the tool fully and safely invocable.

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%, with each parameter (name, scope, org_id, repo_id) already containing detailed descriptions including case-sensitivity and scope-dependent requirements. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Returns'), a clearly bounded resource ('one secret's metadata'), and exactly which fields are returned (events, images, note). It also explicitly distinguishes this from value retrieval, making it easy to tell apart from list_secrets, create_secret, update_secret, and delete_secret.

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 gives clear context: this tool returns metadata only, and the secret value is never included, so an agent knows not to call it when the value is needed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the 'one secret' phrasing and the value-stripping caveat provide practical selection guidance.

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