secret_list

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

Despite no annotations, the description explicitly labels it as a read operation with '[READ]' and states that secret values are never returned. This clearly communicates the safe, read-only nature. However, it does not mention pagination, authorization requirements, or error conditions, which would add completeness.

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 description is concise: two sentences and two parameter lines, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value, front-loading the key behavior (read-only, value redaction) and then listing parameters.

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?

The description explains return content (names, types, key names) and the tool's purpose. There is no output schema, so it covers that gap. Missing details on list behavior (pagination, sorting) and output format, but overall sufficient for a simple list 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the two parameters: namespace (optional, omits for all) and target (k8s target name). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types, though further detail on acceptable values would improve it.

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?

Description clearly states it lists secrets with names, types, and key names only, and explicitly mentions values are redacted. This distinguishes it from other sibling tools by specifying the resource and the constraints, making the purpose very clear.

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?

The tool tells when to use it: 'Use this to discover which secrets and keys exist, then mount/reference them via the kubeconfig-authorized workload.' It implies a follow-up action but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare against alternatives, though no other secret-related siblings exist.

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