search_secrets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Search' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what happens with no matches, or how results are returned. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It could be slightly improved by front-loading more critical information about behavioral aspects, but it's appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'sections' are, what format results are returned in, whether there are limitations on search scope, or how this differs from other retrieval tools. The description should provide more context given the lack of structured metadata.

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 the single parameter 'keyword' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'matching a keyword' but doesn't provide additional context about search semantics, case sensitivity, partial matching, or search scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the action ('Search') and target resource ('secrets vault for sections'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_sections' or 'get_section' - it mentions 'matching a keyword' but doesn't explain how this differs from other listing/retrieval operations.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_sections' or 'get_section'. The description implies keyword-based searching but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferable to other retrieval methods or mention any prerequisites for using the tool.

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