View Secret

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that secrets may have view limits and will be destroyed after maximum views (explaining destructiveHint), specifies default browser behavior for security, and describes output_mode options. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and operational details that annotations alone don't cover.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and key behavioral traits (view limits, destruction), and the second explains the default and alternative output modes. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste or redundancy.

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 complexity (destructive operation, multiple parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, key behaviors, and output options. However, it lacks details on error handling, response format for 'direct' mode, or how view limits are tracked, leaving minor gaps for the agent.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning output_mode options briefly but not providing additional semantics or usage nuances for parameters like url vs. secret_id/encryption_key alternatives.

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 specific action ('retrieve and decrypt') and resource ('a secret from a Vaulted secure link'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_secret' (creation) and 'list_secrets' (listing). It goes beyond the name/title by specifying the decryption aspect and Vaulted source.

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 clear context for usage ('retrieve and decrypt a secret') and mentions default behavior (opens in browser) and alternatives via output_mode. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'check_status' or 'list_secrets', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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