github_actions_list_org_secrets

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or whether secrets are returned decrypted. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to inform the agent of important constraints.

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 very concise at three words, but it is too minimal, omitting important details like pagination or result scope. While not verbose, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity, resulting in an adequate but not optimal structure.

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 the lack of output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value. It does not mention that results are paginated or what fields are included. For a simple list tool, this is a notable gap.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters (org, per_page, page) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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?

The description states 'List organization secrets', which clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (organization secrets). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_org_secret' or 'create_or_update_org_secret', but it does not explain what information is returned (e.g., names only or full details).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'github_actions_get_org_secret' for a single secret or 'github_actions_list_selected_repos_for_org_secret' for related data. The description lacks any context about use cases or exclusions.

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