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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: results are names only and secret values are never returned, which matters for an agent deciding whether it needs another tool to retrieve values.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the usage hint, then the security constraint. Nothing is redundant or repeated from the title.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, and full schema coverage on the one optional parameter, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: names-only semantics, the pat_secret_name hand-off, and the no-values guarantee. Only minor gap is no mention of provider filtering behavior in prose.

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 100% and the single provider parameter is documented inline with its enum values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no filtering semantics (e.g., what happens when provider is null) beyond what the schema already states, which is the expected baseline here.

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 and resource ("List stored secrets") with a qualifying scope: secrets usable as a Git personal access token for private repositories, and names only. An agent can distinguish it from add_git_secret/delete_git_secret by the read-only 'list' framing, though siblings are not named 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?

"Pass the name as pat_secret_name" gives a concrete downstream workflow hint that ties the output of this tool to whichever tool consumes a PAT secret name. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion guidance, but the context for calling it is unambiguous.

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