list_available_secrets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and it clarifies that the output is a brief description of each handler. However, it does not mention potential output size, security implications, or whether actual secret values are exposed, which could be relevant for a secrets-related tool.

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 compact at two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, while the second provides helpful context about secrets handlers. No redundant information is present, though the second sentence is explanatory rather than directly about tool behavior.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what is returned (handlers with short descriptions). It might have added a note about the return format or pagination, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it provides sufficient context for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is fine since there are no parameters to define. The schema coverage is 100% by virtue of having no properties.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'all available clearskies secrets handlers', and specifies that each has a short description. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_available_backends or list_available_columns by focusing on secrets handlers.

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 implies use cases (enumerating secrets handlers) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_secret_info for details on a specific handler. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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