github_codespaces_list_org_secrets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'List organization secrets', which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm safety, disclose required permissions, or describe pagination behavior. The parameter descriptions cover pagination, but the description itself lacks transparency.

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 extremely concise at two words. While it could benefit from additional context, its brevity is not a flaw. The structure is simple and front-loaded. However, it is slightly under-specified for the complexity of the tool's ecosystem.

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 simplicity of the tool (a list operation with well-documented parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools and does not provide behavioral context beyond the bare minimum. Annotations are missing, so the description should compensate, but it does not.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (org, per_page, page) with descriptions. The description adds no additional information about parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 organization secrets' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name without adding new context. It does not distinguish this from siblings like github_actions_list_org_secrets or github_dependabot_list_org_secrets, which also list organization secrets. The purpose is adequate but lacks differentiation.

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. Given the presence of multiple list_org_secrets tools for different GitHub services (Actions, Dependabot, Codespaces), the description should explicitly state that this tool lists Codespaces-specific secrets. Without such context, an agent may select the wrong tool.

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