Delimit Secret List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it emphasizes that secret values are never exposed, states side effects as read-only, and reveals the underlying call to ai.secrets_broker.list_secrets. This is strong but not exhaustive; a 4 reflects solid added value without needing to over-credit.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: core purpose first, then usage guidance, sibling contrast, side effects, args, and returns. Every section earns its place and is concise; there is no filler or repetition.

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 read-only, zero-parameter tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, confirms there are no arguments, clarifies side effects, and gives enough selection guidance against relevant siblings. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, and the description explicitly states 'Args: None,' which aligns with the empty input schema. With no parameters to document, the schema and description together fully disambiguate invocation requirements. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and nothing else is needed.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List secrets in the broker' and immediately clarifies the scope with 'metadata only — never values.' It distinguishes itself from delimit_secret_get and delimit_secret_store, making the tool's purpose unmistakable even within a very large sibling list.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, names the exact alternative tools for retrieving values and storing secrets, and adds a sibling contrast explaining the audited versus metadata-only difference. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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