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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that values are masked and only key names/labels are returned, which is a key safety trait. It does not mention pagination or auth, but for a simple list operation this is sufficient.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function and masking, the second explains practical use with concrete examples. Every sentence contributes value and there is no redundancy.

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 with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, output expectations (masked keys and labels), and usage rationale with examples. It does not describe potential errors or pagination, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already fully describes targetId ('The target ID'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal extra meaning about the parameter by referencing the 'target's vault', but this is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('List') and resource ('secrets stored in a target's vault'), distinguishing it from secret-management siblings like delete_secret, store_secret, and rotate_secret. It also adds important scope ('target's vault') and result details (values masked, only key names and labels shown).

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 provides context about when this tool is relevant (secrets used by test plugins) and implies its role in inspecting available secret keys. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools for different use cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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