get_secrets_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description itself adds nothing beyond the annotations - it does not mention pagination, the cursor-based listing behavior, or the fact that it returns secrets rather than a single secret.

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?

It is a single short sentence, so it is certainly concise and front-loaded. However, that brevity comes at the cost of underspecification, and the tool title merely repeats the description verbatim in the annotations.

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?

Given that the tool is a paginated listing operation with four parameters, a near-duplicate sibling (get_secret_route), and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum clarify that it lists secrets and how it relates to the single-secret sibling, neither of which it does.

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 four parameters (cursor, search, page_size, dependency_limit) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond this. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get Convai Workspace Secrets' names a resource but the verb 'Get' is ambiguous between fetching a single secret and listing all secrets. It does not distinguish itself from its close sibling get_secret_route, which presumably fetches one secret. An agent cannot tell these apart without opening the schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With near-duplicate siblings such as get_secret_route and get_secret_dependencies_route in the list, the description gives the agent no way to choose this tool over those.

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