wave_secret_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reveal key behavioral facts: it is gated behind approval plus a justification, and it depends on the Seashell Helper being present. It stops short of disclosing what the listing returns (e.g. whether secret values are masked) or any rate limits.

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?

A single tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and immediately follows with the auth/dependency constraints. No filler.

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?

It covers the two parameters and the helper dependency, but for a secrets-listing tool with no output schema it omits what is actually returned—critically, whether values are exposed or masked. That gap matters for an agent deciding how to handle the response.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the semantics by noting approved must be true and reason non-empty, but this largely restates the schema rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all Wave Terminal secret keys'), clearly distinguishable from the singular wave_secret_get sibling via 'all'. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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?

Communicates the gating conditions required to use it (approved=true, non-empty reason) and its tier, which implies a sensitive-use path. However, it never states when to prefer this over wave_secret_get or wave_secret_set, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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