ci_validate_secrets

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses side effects: 'one outbound request per validatable secret (cost scales with N)', 'Reads each secret value (records 'read' audit events)'. It also describes the return format and edge case ('Returns 'No secrets to validate' if nothing in scope has a provider mapping').

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 paragraph but well-structured: purpose first, then use cases, side effects, return format. It is not overly verbose, though could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (JSON with total, valid, invalid, results). It also covers side effects, edge cases, and parameter scope fully described in the input schema. The tool is complex but the description covers all necessary context.

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 description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond what is already in the schema. It does mention the overall behavior related to scope but does not enhance individual parameter semantics beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 starts with '[validation] Validate every accessible secret in the requested scope against its detected provider in a single batch and return a structured pass/fail report.' It clearly states the main function (batch validation) and the output (pass/fail report). It distinguishes from the sibling `validate_secret` by noting it's for single key validation.

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?

Explicitly suggests use cases: 'Use as a CI gate ... or as a pre-rotation health pass' and recommends `validate_secret` for a single key, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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