List a project's secrets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add beyond that. It adds value by revealing that secrets are stored one-way-encrypted and thus values are never returned, which is not captured in annotations. This is useful behavioral context.

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 sentences efficiently convey purpose, behavior, and limitation. Front-loaded with key action and scope. No unnecessary words.

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 list tool with one parameter and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, and limitation. No output schema exists, but the description explains what is returned (names only), which is sufficient. Could optionally mention pagination or ordering, but not required for this simplicity.

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%, with a single required parameter 'ref' described as 'Project id or subdomain'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, 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?

Description clearly states it lists secret keys for a project, explicitly distinguishing that values are never returned. This differentiates it from sibling tools like set_secret or remove_secret, and clarifies it's a read-only operation.

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?

Description implies when to use (to list secret names) and notes that values are not returned, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare with siblings like list_projects.

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