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

Although readOnlyHint=true already covers safety, the description adds substantial behavioral context: values are never returned, each item includes a ${SECRET_SLOT:<id>} sentinel used in stack values/manifests/MCP env, and created_via distinguishes user-typed from Ankra-generated values. It also lists exactly what metadata is returned.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the remaining clauses all carry useful information about returned fields, sentinel behavior, and sibling distinction. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-shape information, explains the sentinel mechanism, clarifies the security behavior around values, and distinguishes this from get_secrets. That is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics and appropriately focuses on return shape and scope instead.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the organisation's secrets (secret slots)'. It also enumerates the returned attributes and explicitly distinguishes these organisation secrets from Kubernetes Secrets read by get_secrets.

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?

It states the scope directly and names the key alternative: these are organisation secrets, not Kubernetes Secrets, and get_secrets reads those. That gives an agent an explicit routing rule between the two tools.

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