get_secret

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authorization requirement (whitelisting), which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects (none expected), rate limits, or response format, leaving some gaps for a complete picture.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the action and then adds the prerequisite. Every sentence is necessary and efficient.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core action and a critical prerequisite. However, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., the secret value in plaintext), which would be helpful for an agent without an output schema. Still, it is fairly complete for a simple read operation.

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 coverage is 100% for the only parameter 'name', so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Secret name' description. No extra syntax, format, or constraints are provided.

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 'Read a secret value by name', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_secret, list_secrets, etc., which have different actions.

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 a prerequisite (whitelisting) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the action 'read' compared to siblings, but no when-not-to-use or explicit alternative naming is given.

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