prepare_secret

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it shows a dialog, buffers the secret, auto-sends on password prompt, and never logs it. It doesn't cover cancellation or buffer expiration, but given the absence of annotations, it provides sufficient transparency.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence adds value: first states purpose, second explains the core mechanism, third gives a concrete use case. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral and usage aspects. It could mention what happens if multiple secrets are pre-staged or the buffer timeout, but it is largely complete.

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 67%, and the description adds meaningful context for 'prompt' and 'line_ending' (defaults, usage examples). It does not add to 'session_id', but overall it enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool pre-stages a secret for a session, shows a GUI dialog, and automatically sends it when a password prompt appears. It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_secret or inject_secret by emphasizing proactive pre-staging and automatic handling.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool before connecting to devices with short password timeouts (e.g., serial console). It could be improved by also stating when not to use it, but the provided guidance is clear and actionable.

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