secret_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the tool does not read or return the secret's value, which is a significant safety-related behavior. The verb 'Report' also implies a read-only operation, though it could more explicitly state that no bindings are modified.

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, information-dense sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action ('Report whether a secret exists and is bound') and then adds the key limitation ('without reading or returning its value'). Every part earns its place.

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 simple check tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential behavior and the most important constraint. It lacks an explicit mention of what the response shape is, especially when 'endpoints' is omitted, but 'Report whether' sufficiently implies a status or boolean-style result.

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%, so the input schema fully documents the 'secret' and 'endpoints' parameters, including format rules for endpoints. The description adds only minor conceptual context ('selected endpoints') beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('whether a secret exists and is bound to selected endpoints'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling mutation tools like secret_bind, secret_unbind, and action_add_secret. It also adds the important scope limit 'without reading or returning its value', which tells an agent exactly what the tool is and is not for.

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 implies a use case—checking secret existence and binding status—but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over secret_bind, secret_unbind, or action_add_secret, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context from sibling names rather than being told.

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