secret_list

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it guarantees no secret data is ever returned, enumerates the metadata fields, requires a swarm manager, and specifies valid filter keys. This goes beyond the annotations and is especially important for a read-only operation on sensitive data.

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-structured with a leading purpose, a clarifying note, and labeled Args/Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the most important facts, though 'data-free' is stated twice, which is a minor redundancy. Overall, it is concise and scannable.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, prerequisite, filtering options, return type, and data fields. It omits non-essential details like pagination or error handling, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 0% for the filters parameter and the schema provides no description or structure. The description compensates thoroughly by defining its purpose, the default behavior when omitted, and the exact valid filter keys (id, name, names, label with optional key=value). This gives an agent everything needed to construct filters.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'swarm secrets', and the scope 'metadata' in the first sentence. It distinguishes itself from siblings like secret_inspect by specifying that results never include secret data, only metadata fields (name, id, labels, timestamps). This is a precise and non-tautological purpose.

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?

It provides a necessary prerequisite ('requires a swarm manager'), lists valid filter keys, and explains the filters parameter default. However, it only references secret_inspect to compare data-free behavior, not explicitly stating when to choose list over inspect or alternate tools; it is implied but not directly stated.

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