get_secrets_store

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' conveys a read-only single-item fetch, but nothing else: it doesn't state whether secret values are returned or just metadata, what happens for invalid IDs, or whether sensitive material is involved. The description does not contradict annotations (there are none), so no contradiction flag.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-id operation, though the space saved could have been used to add a sibling distinction or return-format note.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not clarify what 'details' means, and the presence of list_secrets_store_secrets in the sibling list makes the metadata-versus-values distinction potentially important. Two required parameters are documented, but the operational semantics are thin for a tool touching secrets infrastructure.

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 both parameters (store_id and account_id) already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying which parameter is the primary key or how the two relate. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('secrets store'), and a specific scope ('details'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_secrets_stores (which enumerates stores) and list_secrets_store_secrets (which enumerates secrets within a store), though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus list_secrets_stores or list_secrets_store_secrets, nor any prerequisite such as needing the store_id from a prior list call. An agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name and parameter names.

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