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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses exactly what metadata is returned (title, size, readers, key waiters, key rotation status) and, critically, that contents and the file's own name are never returned because they are encrypted client-side. This is meaningful behavioral context that annotations do not provide.

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 sentences, all front-loaded: what it lists, what it never returns, and how to scope the call. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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, non-destructive list tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, the security/encryption limitation, and the required scoping parameters. Only minor operational details like ordering or pagination are absent, which are not essential for correct invocation.

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%, so the parameters are already documented, and the baseline would be 3. The description adds value by clarifying that either issueKey or pageId should be supplied, which matters because the schema marks both optional with null defaults.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the secret files') and scopes it to an issue or wiki page visible to the token's person. It clearly separates this from siblings like get_secret_file_journal or list_credentials by stating exactly what is listed and where.

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 gives clear context for when the tool applies (issue or wiki page the token's person reads) and instructs 'Pass issueKey or pageId.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of the top-tier when/when-not guidance.

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