list_secrets

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the output is a list with names/IDs, is automatically stored, includes pagination details (limit, after cursor), and provides a formatted preview with an object ID. No mention of side effects, but reasonable for a read-only listing operation.

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 concise with no unnecessary repetition. It is front-loaded with purpose. Minor redundancy in docstring formatting, but overall each sentence contributes useful 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers purpose, parameters, output behavior, and integration with object store. It is complete for an effective listing operation.

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 has 0% coverage, but the description explicitly documents both parameters: 'limit: Maximum number of secrets to return (default: 10)' and 'after: The cursor to fetch the next page of results'. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 'Lists all secrets available in the user's deepset organization' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_secret' by implying the action covers all secrets.

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 notes it's useful 'for getting an overview of all secrets before retrieving specific ones,' providing a when-to-use hint. It also explains how to use the output (object ID for further operations), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like get_secret.

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