github_actions_list_repo_secrets

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

The description only says 'list', providing no behavioral details such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether it returns all secrets or filtered. Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden but fails to disclose key traits.

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 overly brief (two words). While concise, it omits essential information, making it insufficiently informative.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and numerous sibling list tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination, scoping, or how it differs from related tools.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 'List repository secrets' clearly states the action (list) and resource (repository secrets). However, among many sibling tools with similar names (e.g., list_org_secrets, list_repo_organization_secrets), it does not differentiate its scope.

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 context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_repo_organization_secrets. No guidance on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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