list_secrets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that secret values are never displayed, which is a critical safety trait. It also notes that only type and key count are shown, providing clear expectations. Some details like pagination or sorting are missing, but the key behavioral constraint is well communicated.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and a critical safety note. Every word is necessary, and no extraneous information is present. It is efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values need not be elaborated), the description lacks context on the optional parameters and how they filter results. It does not state default behavior (e.g., all clusters or all namespaces). For a tool with three parameters, the description is somewhat minimal but still covers the main action and safety.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. However, the description does not mention any of the three parameters (cluster, namespace, label_selector), their purpose, or how they affect results. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but not explicitly clarified.

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 action 'List' and the resource 'Secrets', and specifies that only type and key count are shown, distinguishing it from tools that might display values. However, it does not directly compare to sibling tools like get_secret_keys, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_secret_keys or list_configmaps. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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