Describe Handle

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only discloses that it shows 'non-secret metadata' for a 'local secret handle'. It does not specify behavior if handle is invalid, required permissions, or side effects. Important aspects are missing.

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 one sentence with 7 words, perfectly concise and front-loaded. No wasted words; every part contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on error conditions, case sensitivity, or metadata structure. It could be more complete without becoming verbose.

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 single parameter 'handle' lacks schema description (0% coverage). The description adds context that it is a 'local secret handle', providing minimal additional meaning beyond type and minLength. More detail on format or allowed values would be beneficial.

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 verb 'Show' and the resource 'non-secret metadata for one local secret handle'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like sgw_list_handles (which lists handles) and sgw_execute_request (which executes requests).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sgw_list_handles or sgw_scan_file. There is no mention of context or exclusions.

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