secret_list

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description reveals key behavioral traits: results never include secret data, only metadata (name, id, labels, timestamps), and valid filter keys. This adds significant transparency about what the operation returns and its safety, which is not declared in annotations.

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 well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a clarifying comparison, filter key details, and a compact args/returns breakdown. Every sentence adds unique value with no filler or repetition, making it both concise and comprehensive.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers usage, filter semantics, return type, and content. It also mentions the swarm manager prerequisite. There are no significant gaps, making it suitable for an agent to invoke correctly without further 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?

The schema has no descriptions for the 'filters' parameter (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining its purpose ('Narrow the list; omit to return every secret') and enumerating valid filter keys ('id', 'name', 'names', 'label'). This provides rich semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('List swarm secrets' metadata') and resource ('swarm secrets'), distinguishing it from related tools like secret_inspect by emphasizing the collective listing and metadata-only scope. The verb 'List' is specific and the scope is well-defined.

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?

The description provides clear context by noting the need for a swarm manager and mentioning the similarity to secret_inspect, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The filter key guidance helps usage, but exclusionary alternatives are not spelled out.

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