secretsmanager_list_secrets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the tool name ('List all secrets') without adding details such as whether the operation is read-only, what fields are returned, or whether pagination exists. This lack of behavioral context beyond the name is a significant gap.

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 a single, short sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all secrets') and adds useful environment context ('in LocalStack'). There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 a simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the basic action, but it omits details about the return value (e.g., whether it returns secret metadata or only names) and does not mention pagination or other caveats. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description needs no additional parameter information. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description is adequate without introducing any parameter-related confusion.

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 the specific verb 'List' and resource 'secrets in Secrets Manager', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like secretsmanager_get_secret (which retrieves a specific secret) and secretsmanager_create_secret. It also adds the LocalStack context, making the scope explicit.

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: it lists all secrets, and the sibling tool names (get_secret, update_secret, etc.) implicitly indicate alternatives for other operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or reference an alternative by name, so it falls short of a 5.

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