av_list_secrets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'list' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, authentication needs, what happens if the vault does not exist, or pagination behavior. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about important behavioral traits.

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 concise sentence with no redundant information. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's action and scope, with zero fluff.

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 tool with one parameter, the description is mostly adequate. It specifies what is listed (secret names) and where (vault). However, it does not mention the return format, error behavior, or prerequisites, and the lack of an output schema means the description could have added a bit more detail about the response. Still, it is far from incomplete.

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 one required parameter 'vault' (string) with no description. The description references 'in a vault', which maps to this parameter and adds meaning that the list is scoped to a vault. However, it does not explain the format, allowed values, or how to specify the vault (e.g., name vs. path). Given the low schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 function: listing secret names within a vault. The verb 'list' and resource 'secret names' are specific, and the scope 'in a vault' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_secret (retrieve a single secret) and put_secret (write a secret).

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 conveys the tool's purpose (list secrets) but does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools (get_secret, put_secret) implies this is for enumeration, and the phrase 'list secret names' clearly indicates it is not for retrieving values. This is clear context without exclusions.

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