Programmability List Secrets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-value context (quoted_name and quoted_qualified_name, including the conditional nature of the latter), which is useful but partly redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and with zero filler. The second sentence is dense but relevant and does not pad.

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?

Annotations and an output schema cover safety and return shape, but the undocumented `pattern` parameter leaves a real gap for an agent trying to filter results, and no sibling routing guidance is given in a namespace where describe_secret exists.

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 description says nothing about the three parameters. Schema coverage is 67%: database and schema_name carry quoting guidance, but the `pattern` parameter — likely the primary filter — has no description in either the schema or the description, so the gap is not compensated.

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 and resource ('List security secrets') and even enumerates what counts as a secret (API keys, OAuth credentials). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling programmability_describe_secret.

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 on when to use this versus programmability_describe_secret, or how to scope the listing. The list-vs-describe convention is only inferable from the tool names, not stated in the description.

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