secret_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the genuinely useful behavioral fact that secret values are never returned and are redacted to key names. It also implies access is gated by kubeconfig authorization. It does not cover pagination or error behavior, but the added context goes beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loads the read-only redaction constraint in the first line, then the usage guidance, then a compact Args block. No sentence is redundant for a two-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies what is returned (names, types, key names; values redacted) and how each parameter behaves, which is everything an agent needs to call and interpret this tool.

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: namespace is documented with the default behavior (omit for all namespaces) and target is defined as a k8s target name from config. Only the accepted target-name values remain unspecified.

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 secrets) and immediately bounds the scope: only names, types, and key NAMES are returned. This distinguishes it from sibling readers like configmap_get or pod_describe without needing to name them.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it: to discover which secrets and keys exist, then mount/reference them through the authorized workload. That is a clear usage context, though it never names an alternative tool or an exclusion condition the way a 5 would.

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