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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered, but the description adds nothing about what cancellation actually does to an outstanding request, whether a canceled request can later be submitted, or whether the call is idempotent or errors on an already-completed request. With a destructive mutation and zero disclosure of its effect, this leaves a real gap.

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 words is brief but not concise in the useful sense: nothing is front-loaded because nothing is explained. The size reflects under-specification rather than economy.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and five closely related siblings, the description does not give an agent enough to call it correctly or predict the result. It should at minimum identify the request identifier's source and the effect of cancellation.

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?

There is exactly one parameter (requestId) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema supplies only type and length constraints. The description never mentions requestId, how to obtain it, or which sibling returns it, leaving the parameter's semantics entirely undocumented.

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 pairs a verb (cancel) with a vague object ("pending input"), so the resource is only identifiable by leaning on the title, which says "secure input request." It is enough to know this cancels something pending, but it does not state the scope or distinguish it from siblings like check_secret_request or secureinput_status.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the other five siblings (submit_inline_secret, check_secret_request, request_secret, secureinput_status, inline_request_status). The agent must infer that this is the teardown counterpart to request_secret on its own.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the call can block up to the wait limit, which discourages polling loops. It does not describe what statuses come back or what happens at timeout, so the addition is modest.

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 short sentences with no padding, and the actionable invocation tip comes early. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing purpose and parameter context.

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 and no annotations about returns, the description should say what a check yields (pending vs fulfilled, or how the secret is delivered) and what timeout means. None of that is present, so an agent cannot plan around the result.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters. It only advises a waitSeconds value; the required requestId is never explained (e.g., that it comes from request_secret), and the 0-45 range and default of 30 are left to the schema alone.

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?

"Wait for request status" gestures at a verb and resource but is close to restating the title, and it never says the subject is a pending secure input request or how it differs from siblings like inline_request_status and secureinput_status. An agent cannot tell from the description which of the several status tools to pick.

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 only guidance is "Use waitSeconds=45 to avoid repeated polling," which is an invocation tip rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when this tool is appropriate versus request_secret, submit_inline_secret, or the other status tools, and no prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key trait that this call blocks/waits, but omits what happens on timeout, whether a timeout is an error or a status result, and polling behavior — meaningful gaps for a wait-style tool.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the whole budget is spent on a vague noun phrase with no front-loaded detail about blocking or return shape.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does not — an agent cannot tell whether this returns a status object, blocks until completion, or errors on timeout. With two parameters at 0% coverage and ambiguous sibling overlap, the definition is too thin.

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 0% and the description says nothing about requestId or waitSeconds — not even that waitSeconds is the max blocking duration with a default of 30 and a ceiling of 45, which is the single most important parameter semantic here. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Wait for inline delivery status" gives a verb (wait) and a resource (inline delivery status), so the gist is retrievable, but "inline delivery status" is opaque and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like check_secret_request or secureinput_status, which plausibly do similar status lookups.

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 word "Wait" weakly implies this is the blocking/polling variant versus a non-blocking check, but no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling alternative is named despite five closely related sibling tools being present.

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

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, and the description adds the important security constraint that secrets must never go in args. "Returns requestId and status" hints at an asynchronous flow, but waitSeconds, timeoutSeconds, and the return mode are never explained, so the agent cannot tell whether the call blocks or must be polled with check_secret_request.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two most important usage rules — no wasted words. The terseness is arguably over-compressed given the schema complexity, but the structure itself is clean.

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 tool has a complex nested delivery oneOf with three modes, 7 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description covers only two of the three delivery modes (return is missing) and omits the async/timeout semantics, so an agent must reverse-engineer the schema to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only alludes to the fields' id values and write_env mapping keys. It says nothing about title, description, cwd, fields (up to 10, with type/label/required/pattern/autocomplete sub-properties), waitSeconds, or timeoutSeconds, leaving most of the 7 parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

"Collect secret input" states a specific verb and resource, and the delivery-mode hints ({{fieldId}} in execute stdin/env, write_env keys) make clear this is a request-and-deliver flow rather than an inline submission. It does not name any sibling, so the distinction from submit_inline_secret or check_secret_request is left implicit.

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 does give actionable usage for the delivery modes and the "never put secrets in args" rule, which shapes how the agent should call it. But there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus submit_inline_secret, check_secret_request, or cancel_secret_request, and no statement of prerequisites or when a request must be polled.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call returns input mode plus pending request IDs, but never explains what "input mode" values mean or how pending IDs relate to the other request tools.

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 no filler. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification given the unexplained domain term.

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 must carry the return contract, and it only sketches it: "input mode" and "pending request IDs" are named but not characterized. For a zero-param read tool that is acceptable but leaves real ambiguity about what an agent receives and how to use it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to document; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, poll-style call.

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?

A specific verb ("Get") paired with two concrete outputs (input mode, pending request IDs) tells an agent what it retrieves. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from overlapping siblings like inline_request_status or check_secret_request, and "input mode" is left undefined.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the closely related sibling tools for checking secret/request status. The agent is left to infer that this is a general state poll rather than a per-request check.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered, but the description adds nothing: it does not say what gets consumed or destroyed (presumably the pending secret request), whether the operation is one-shot, or what happens on success or failure. No contradiction with annotations, but zero added value.

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 short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded, so there is no waste. However, for a five-parameter cryptographic submission tool this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 a destructive, open-world write with five strictly-patterned required parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the request lifecycle and payload construction. One sentence leaves the agent unable to build a valid call or understand the consequences.

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 0% for five required parameters, and the description compensates with nothing. It never explains that key/iv are base64-encoded cryptographic material, that ciphertext carries the actual secret, or that requestId must reference an existing request — all of which are essential for correct invocation.

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?

"Submit an encrypted input envelope" gives a verb and a resource, but it is essentially a paraphrase of the title ("Submit encrypted secure input") and leaves "envelope" undefined. It gives no hint of how this differs from siblings like request_secret or secureinput_status, so an agent cannot route on this alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. a requestId must first come from request_secret), and no mention of alternatives such as inline_request_status for checking progress. The agent must infer the entire workflow from the sibling names.

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