secret_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two meaningful behaviors: it returns names plus metadata fields (backend ref, resolvable) and it deliberately withholds secret values. It does not state read-only safety, permission requirements, or how many entries are returned, so it falls short of exhaustive.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the two facts an agent most needs (what metadata comes back, what is not returned). Every clause 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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the return shape (names + backend ref + resolvable) and the critical exclusion of values. It could go one step further by stating the read-only nature or pagination/size behavior, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters (empty object schema), so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents the parameter surface.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("List registered secret names") and immediately bounds the result set with "with metadata (backend ref, resolvable)" plus the negative scope "Never returns values." This cleanly separates it from siblings like secret_probe (which presumably retrieves values) and secret_set/secret_delete.

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 "Never returns values" clause implies the tool is for enumeration only and that value retrieval belongs to a sibling, but no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use or prerequisite is stated. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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