list_measurement_protocol_secrets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation (listing secrets) but does not mention implicit behaviors like read-only nature, pagination, or sensitivity of secrets. The straightforward name and scope provide some clarity, but the description adds limited context beyond the obvious.

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 two short sentences that immediately state the purpose and provide essential parameter guidance. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 relatively simple with 2 required parameters and an output schema, but the description omits property_id and provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. create/delete variants. The cross-reference to list_data_streams is useful, but the overall description leaves some gaps in context.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains stream_id as 'the numeric id from list_data_streams,' which is helpful. However, property_id is left unexplained, though its title 'Property Id' gives some hint. The description partially compensates but misses one parameter.

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 Measurement Protocol API secrets for a data stream, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as create_measurement_protocol_secret and delete_measurement_protocol_secret, making its purpose 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 when to use this tool (to list secrets for a data stream) and even cross-references list_data_streams for obtaining stream_id. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or when to prefer alternatives, though the listing nature is self-evident.

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