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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the single most important behavioral fact: it never returns secret values, which is critical for a secrets tool. It also notes fingerprints are returned, though read-only/rate-limit behavior is left implicit.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key safety constraint. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the critical non-disclosure property is stated. For a zero-param read tool this is nearly complete, missing only explicit routing versus sibling tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is no parameter semantics burden to compensate for. The description correctly adds no parameter detail since none exist.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('list stored handles') and clarifies the returned shape ('with fingerprints'). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like vault_info or revoke_secret, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as vault_info or request_with_secret. Usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'list'.

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

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses that substitution happens server-side, the key is injected outside the conversation, and the response is scrubbed before returning. It does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or what happens if a handle is unknown or was never staged.

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?

Front-loaded with the core mechanism, then the usage rule, then the security guarantee, then args. No sentence is redundant and each adds information the schema does not already contain.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, and the description still notes response scrubbing. The main gap is operational context: it never states that a handle must first be staged (a sibling tool) or what error behavior to expect.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does: method values enumerated, url accepts {{handle}} in path or query, headers shown with a concrete Bearer {{stripe}} example, and body accepts substitution. This fully compensates for the undocumented 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?

States a specific verb (call an API) plus the distinguishing mechanism: server-side substitution of {{handle}} for the real secret. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_secrets, stage_secret, revoke_secret, and vault_info, which manage secrets rather than consume them.

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?

"Use this instead of writing the key into a shell command or curl" gives an explicit when-to-use rule with a concrete alternative. It stops short of naming sibling tools or stating when-not to use it (e.g., for non-secreted requests).

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one valuable trait, that the real secret is destroyed locally, hinting at irreversibility. However, it omits permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, and what happens if the name doesn't exist.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the destruction side-effect immediately after. Appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Still, for a destructive mutation with no annotations, the description should cover authorization and irreversibility more fully; the local-destruction note is a good start but leaves the agent under-informed.

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% and the sole parameter `name` is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description never explains what value `name` should hold or how it relates to handles produced by stage_secret.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete/revoke) and resource (a stored handle), which is clear enough to distinguish from list_secrets and stage_secret. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or clarify the revoke-vs-delete relationship, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as stage_secret or request_with_secret. The agent must infer that this is the cleanup step after a handle is no longer needed.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it states the original is written to an encrypted local vault and is not returned, and that the output text is safe to repeat. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the schema. It omits persistence/lifetime of the staged secret and what happens if the same secret is staged twice with colliding handles.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and result, followed by the trigger condition, the safety property, and a compact Args block. Every sentence carries information and there is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description is nonetheless solid on input, side effects, and safety. For a security-sensitive mutation with zero annotation coverage it could say more about handle collisions and how the staged value is later used by request_with_secret, but nothing critical is missing for a correct invocation.

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 supply the meaning, and it does for both parameters: text is "the raw text containing the secret(s)" and name is an optional forced handle with a concrete example ("stripe" -> {{stripe}}). The explicit handle syntax is the kind of detail the schema cannot convey. The `text` gloss remains close to a restatement, keeping it below 5.

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 gives a concrete verb (store) and resource (secrets), and adds the distinctive transformation: the returned text has handles substituted for the raw secret. That clearly separates it from revoke_secret or list_secrets by implication. It stops short of a 5 because it never names or contrasts itself with the actual siblings.

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?

"Use this the moment a user pastes an API key, token, or private key" is an explicit, unambiguous trigger condition. However, it offers no when-not guidance and never points to the sibling that consumes the staged secret (request_with_secret), so the agent must infer the workflow.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: this read returns metadata only and exposes no secret values. Beyond that it says nothing about permissions, whether the count is scoped to a workspace, or cost.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the return content and closed by the 'No values' caveat, with no filler. The brevity edges into under-specification ('handles') rather than waste, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the zero-parameter surface is trivial. Still, the description leaves the core nouns ('vault', 'handles') vague enough that an agent cannot fully predict what the response means in a multi-tenant context.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level guidance is needed or missing.

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 conveys that this returns vault location plus a count of 'handles', and the terse 'No values' does distinguish it from list_secrets. However, there is no explicit verb (get/report) and 'handles' is unexplained jargon, so an agent must guess what the count actually represents.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the four secret-oriented siblings. 'No values' implicitly signals that list_secrets is the place to look for secret contents, but this routing is left for the agent to infer rather than stated.

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