Request Secret-Backed Execution

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

The description indicates the tool creates a 'pending' manifest, implying the command is not executed immediately. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, state mutation details, or whether it returns a handle for later execution.

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 15-word sentence, very concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting important details about parameters and usage.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of most parameters, the workflow (e.g., how to later execute the pending manifest), or return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 8 parameters, the description only hints at 'command' and 'injectEnv', ignoring the required 'handle' parameter and others like 'env', 'args', 'reason', 'timeoutMs', and 'workingDir'. This leaves critical parameter meaning ambiguous.

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 creates a pending local manifest for a command requiring secret injection. The verb 'create' and resource 'pending local manifest' are specific, and it distinguishes from the sibling 'sgw_execute_request' which likely executes the manifest. However, the term 'pending local manifest' may be jargon.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sgw_execute_request or sgw_describe_handle. It implies it's for commands needing secret injection, but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative contexts.

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