Contract Testing: List Secrets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the workspace scope; it does not mention pagination semantics beyond parameter defaults or any masking/redaction of secret values.

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 one-sentence purpose is front-loaded and clear, but the following 'Toolset: Secrets' line and the entire Parameters block duplicate information already present in the title and input schema. This makes it compact but not every line earns its place.

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 read-only list operation with two optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description plus annotations provide enough information to invoke it correctly. It could be richer by stating the response shape or that secrets are only a listing of metadata, but these are not severe gaps at this complexity level.

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%, and the schema already provides the same descriptions, types, and defaults for pageNumber and pageSize. The description repeats these details rather than adding extra meaning such as maximum page size, ordering, or response format.

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?

Description uses a specific verb—'Retrieve all secrets stored in the workspace'—and clearly identifies the resource (secrets) and scope (workspace). This distinguishes the plural listing operation from siblings such as contract-testing_get_secret, create_secret, and delete_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 intended use is implied by 'all secrets': the agent can infer this is the right tool for enumerating workspace secrets. However, there is no explicit guidance contrasting it with get_secret for retrieving a single secret or with secret mutations, leaving the alternatives to be inferred.

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