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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Values are never returned,' which is a critical guarantee, and adds detail about the metadata returned (last set and by whom). It doesn't mention permissions or pagination, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

A single, tight sentence that front-loads the primary output (names of secrets) and includes the key caveat (no values). Every word earns its place, with 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?

For a simple listing tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs to know: what is returned (names, timestamps, owners) and a safety guarantee (no values). It lacks explicit pagination/ordering details, but these are minor for this scope.

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% with both parameters (tool, workspace) documented. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it remains at the baseline for high coverage. No extra context on parameter usage is given.

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 tool lists secret names along with last-set time and who set them, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('a tool's secrets'). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like secrets_set and secrets_delete by emphasizing metadata rather than values, but doesn't name them explicitly.

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 purpose makes it obvious this is for reading secrets, not modifying them, but there's no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., secrets_set or secrets_delete). No exclusions or conditions are given, leaving usage to inference.

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