fill_secret

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

With no annotations, the description reveals critical behaviors: the server reads from .env, types directly into the element, and the secret never appears in parameters or responses. This is good transparency, though it could mention potential failure modes or idempotency.

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 and well-structured: a one-line summary, a brief mechanism paragraph, and a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence adds value, no filler.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and all parameters adequately. It lacks explicit mention of the return value, but the output is likely a success indicator. Still, it is fairly 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining all six parameters in the Args section, including purposes and defaults (e.g., clear_first defaults to true, wait_after defaults to 500 ms). This adds significant meaning 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's purpose: type a secret value from .env into a form field without exposing it in the conversation. It specifies the action (type), resource (form field), and the key privacy feature, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_2fa_code.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for securely entering secrets but does not contrast with other tools like execute_javascript or fill_form. Missing when-not criteria.

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