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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds a valuable behavioral note: 'Secret values are never returned.' This goes beyond the safety hints to specify output content, helping the agent understand that the tool only provides names, not sensitive values. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second sentence adds a critical constraint. Information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool does and what it returns (names). It does not mention pagination or ordering, but these are likely not critical for this basic operation. The behavior is well covered given the simplicity and annotation support.

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 single parameter app_id, which is described as 'The app ID'. The description mentions 'for an app' which reinforces the parameter's role but adds no additional format, constraints, or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 (List) and resource (secret key names for an app) and explicitly notes that values are never returned. This clearly distinguishes it from set_secret and delete_secret in the sibling list, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Implicitly clear from the name and description that it is used to retrieve secret key names. The added caveat that values are never returned implies it should be used when only names are needed, but it doesn't explicitly reference alternatives or exclusions. Given the tool's simplicity and the obvious contrast with set/delete operations, this is adequate context, though not explicit guidance.

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