list_secrets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meaningfully discloses that the tool only returns metadata and never credential values. It also surfaces the output fields and last-use flag, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention edge behaviors such as pagination or permission failures, but those are minor for this tool.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the main action and output format, then add the critical safety note and a usage cue. Every sentence earns its place 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 simple optional-filter list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return shape, the read-only metadata behavior, and the intended starting point. The schema covers the parameters, and no critical calling information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both optional filters already have clear descriptions in the schema (filter by tag, filter by provider). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Describes a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every credential in the vault'), and explains the metadata-only output fields (ref, provider, description, field names, last used). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly disclaiming credential values, so an agent can tell it apart from describe_secret.

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 phrase 'Start here' gives a clear entry-point cue for exploring the vault, and the metadata-only behavior makes it appropriate for discovery before retrieving a single secret. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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