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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only secrets the caller has rights on are returned and names returned fields, but it omits pagination, permissions, or output behavior details.

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 short but poorly structured, beginning with an unclear fragment 'Members:' and ending with an ellipsis. It is under-specified rather than concisely front-loaded with the tool's action.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description partially covers returned fields, but it leaves the required 'space' parameter unexplained and provides no usage guidance against sibling tools. The definition is not complete enough to call the tool confidently.

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 sole required parameter 'space' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what 'space' means or how to obtain it. The description does not compensate for the missing schema semantics.

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 indicates a collection of shared secrets the caller has rights on and lists returned fields, but it does not explicitly state the action (list) or clearly distinguish it from siblings like space_secret_get. The resource is identifiable, but the purpose is only implied.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus space_secret_get or other secret tools. The only implied usage is listing secrets, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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