List Depot CI secret names and scoping

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: secret values are never exposed by design, filtering happens server-side because upstream filters are undocumented, and the beta API is likely to change. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured and each paragraph earns its place: purpose and security first, then debugging guidance, then filtering and API risk. It is longer than one or two sentences, but nothing is 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?

For a read-only listing tool with a diverse set of optional filters, the description covers the security model, scoping semantics, debugging workflow, server-side filtering rationale, and API stability. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds conceptual value by explaining how scoping works — a secret has variants scoped by repository, environment, branch, and workflow — which helps the agent understand why filters matter and how to interpret results. This goes beyond the baseline.

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 lists Depot CI secret names and scoping, and explicitly notes that values are never returned. It is specific about the resource and action, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like depot_list_ci_variables or depot_diagnose_ci_failure, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives an explicit use case: answer 'why can't my job see $FOO' and compare returned scoping against the job being debugged. It does not mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it is not a full 5.

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