Secrets: list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful disclosure beyond that: results are 'metadata only, values never shown', which tells the agent it cannot retrieve secret material through this call.

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 front-loaded clause with zero filler. The scoping caveat is parenthetical and immediately follows the action, so nothing has to be inferred or scrolled for.

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 critical omission to guard against is whether values leak — and the description closes that gap. Ordering, pagination, and scope (all secrets vs. scoped) are unaddressed, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and nothing for the schema to miss. Baseline 4 applies; no additional parameter meaning is needed.

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 (list) and resource (secret keys), which cleanly separates it from secrets_create, secrets_update, and secrets_delete in the sibling set. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'list' — there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no precondition (e.g. required auth/workspace), and no reference to the sibling secret-management tools. Adequate for a trivial enumeration tool but with clear gaps.

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