list_secrets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation returns metadata only and does not expose secret data, which is a key behavioral safety trait. It does not detail permissions, pagination, or performance, but the core non-mutating nature is conveyed.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and key limitations without wordiness. Every part contributes meaningful information.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and an output schema present, so the description need not detail return values. The core purpose, scope, and safety are covered, though the unexplained cluster_alias parameter and lack of sibling differentiation slightly reduce completeness.

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, but it only references the 'namespace' parameter ('in a namespace') and fails to explain 'cluster_alias'. The parameter meanings are largely left undefined, leaving the agent without adequate semantic guidance for the parameters.

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 all Secrets in a namespace, specifies the scope ('all' and 'in a namespace'), and distinguishes from the sibling get_secret_metadata by noting it returns metadata only. The verb 'List' plus resource 'Secrets' is specific and 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?

The description provides clear context for usage: it lists all secrets in a namespace and explicitly notes that no secret data is exposed, indicating safe read-only usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios relative to sibling tools like get_secret_metadata, so it lacks direct 'use this instead' guidance.

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