prepare_secret

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: showing a GUI dialog immediately, storing the secret in a buffer, automatic sending upon prompt detection, and that the secret is never logged. However, it does not mention whether the dialog can be cancelled or if there are state implications.

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 concise with four sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the main action, explaining the GUI dialog, providing usage guidance, and noting security. The most critical information appears first.

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 tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers core purpose, usage context, and behavioral traits. It explains the workflow and security aspects. However, the missing parameter description for 'session_id' is a gap, preventing a perfect score.

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%, with 'session_id' lacking a description. The description does not add any meaning beyond what is already in the schema for 'line_ending' and 'prompt', and it fails to explain 'session_id'. Thus, it provides no added semantic value over the input 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 stages a secret for a session by showing a GUI dialog, storing it in a buffer, and auto-sending when a password prompt is detected. It specifies the resource ('secret') and action ('pre-stage'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_secret' by emphasizing the pre-staging and auto-send behavior.

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 advises using this tool 'before connecting to devices with short password timeouts (e.g. serial console)', providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'send_secret', but the use case is well-defined.

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