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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds crucial non-obvious behavior: the secret VALUE is never returned by this or any other tool on the connector, which prevents the agent from promising the user something impossible. It also discloses the account scoping constraint ('only YOUR account's secrets').

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 critical constraint (no values returned) is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the use-case example is second. Slightly dense with em-dash asides, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

Despite a rich output schema, the description conveys the one thing the schema cannot: that only aliases, never values, are exposed. For a zero-param, read-only listing tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description adds no misleading parameter-like claims.

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 (List) and resource (secrets stored in the Mnemoverse Vault) and immediately bounds the scope to alias and purpose only. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like memory_read or memory_list_recent, which deal with memories rather than vault secrets.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger scenario ('the user says do I have a GitHub token saved?'), which is strong usage context. It does not name an alternative tool to use instead for retrieving a secret, though the description implies no such tool exists.

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