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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description stays consistent with that while adding the key behavioral fact an agent cannot get from the schema: values are never returned, by design, so callers should not expect them. It still omits auth expectations for the managementToken and any limits on result size.

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 capability and its scope constraint are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds routing intent. The parenthetical about a vault worth stealing is colorful but slightly padded for a tool description.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (names, host bindings, dates, form), which is the main thing an agent needs. The remaining gap is authentication and error behavior around managementToken, which is not covered anywhere.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does not mention either parameter. The dropId format (an 8-character lowercase alphanumeric id) and the role of managementToken are left entirely unexplained, with only 'a graduated app's secrets' hinting loosely at dropId.

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 a graduated app's secrets') and immediately pins the scope: names, host bindings, dates, and form, never values. That scope statement separates it cleanly from sibling read tools like dropyour_list_versions and from write siblings such as dropyour_secret_set.

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?

'Use it to know what to rotate or delete' gives an implied intent, pointing toward rotate_token and secret_delete, but it never names an alternative or says when not to use this tool. The guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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