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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns names only, and secret values cannot be read back through this connection at all. This is important for agents that might otherwise assume secrets are retrievable.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose and use case, and the second sentence clarifies the critical limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations and a clear parameter schema, the description is complete. It explains the return scope (names only), the limitation on values, and the intended usage context. No output schema exists, but the description adequately covers what the caller will get.

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%, and the app_id parameter is already documented with a helpful description referencing list_apps. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 states the operation: listing the names of secrets attached to a specific app. It also specifies the scope (names only) and differentiates this tool from set_app_secret and unset_app_secret by framing it as a pre-check before setting another secret.

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 description gives a clear use case: determine which secrets an app already has before setting another. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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