List stored secrets (names only)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds the material disclosure that values are never returned and enumerates the metadata and allowed-usage surfaces that are returned. It does not cover auth/permission requirements or result limits, but the 'never values' guarantee is real added context beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded with the core action and closed by the key constraint 'Never values'. The long parenthetical of metadata fields is dense but every item earns its place in describing the return surface.

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 usefully documents what is returned and explicitly excludes secret values, and the read-only annotation covers safety. However, it leaves the three filter parameters unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for a tool an agent will use to scope down secrets.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for tag, project, and destination. It names all three, but frames them as returned metadata rather than as filters, which leaves their input semantics ambiguous and potentially misleading for an agent trying to narrow results.

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 (lists) and resource (secret names) plus the scope boundary 'Never values', which immediately separates it from secret_use/secret_request. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like secret_delete or secret_rotate without opening any schema.

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: listing is naturally the discovery step before secret_use or secret_request, but the description never states when to prefer this tool or which sibling to use instead. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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