github_codespaces_list_repo_secrets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List repository secrets' without explaining that it returns secret names (not values), pagination behavior, or required permissions. The schema hints at pagination via 'per_page' and 'page', but the description adds no context about the API's behavior or limitations.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is overly terse and omits important details that could be included without sacrificing conciseness. It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses a point for being under-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?

The tool has no output schema and a minimal description. For a list operation, agents need to know the return structure (e.g., list of secret names, not values). The description fails to clarify this, leaving ambiguity about the tool's output. Given the low complexity, a 2 reflects the significant missing information.

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%, so the input schema already describes the parameters (owner, repo, per_page, page) and their types. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 target (repository secrets). However, it lacks specificity that these are Codespaces secrets, which is important given sibling tools like 'github_actions_list_repo_secrets' and 'github_dependabot_list_repo_secrets'. The tool name includes 'codespaces', so the purpose is clear but not explicitly distinguished from alternatives.

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_list_repo_secrets' or 'github_codespaces_get_repo_secret'. The description does not mention prerequisites, scope (e.g., only lists secret names, not values), or any when-not-to-use conditions.

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