List secret names

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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint by disclosing that secret values are never returned and spelling out per-scope auth requirements, including that repo needs push access and org needs admin rights else Woodpecker returns 403, while global is readable by any user.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and the values-never-returned guarantee come first, then the debugging use case, then scope/auth details. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return shape well (names, events, plugin images, note), plus auth and scope semantics, leaving nothing essential missing for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful meaning: the auth implications of each scope and that global ignores repo. This is genuine added value over the schema's field-level documentation.

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+resource (lists secret names) and clarifies the exact scope of the listing (events, plugin images, note) and the key constraint (values never returned). It is the only secret-related tool among the siblings, so no ambiguity.

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 says when to use it: to debug "secret not found" or a secret missing for an event like pull_request. No alternative tool is named, but there is no obvious sibling substitute, so the context is clear without exclusions.

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