list_secret_storages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description's only added behavior is the HTTP path, which reveals project scoping but says nothing about pagination, result size, permissions required, or what a secret storage object contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource, and no filler. The endpoint sentence is terse and mildly useful, though it duplicates information an agent could infer from the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned, and it does not — no mention of the fields in a secret storage entry, list shape, or pagination. For a listing tool in a family of related secret-storage tools, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema offers only a type and minimum. The description's path template ({project_id}) at least tells the agent that project_id is a path segment scoping the listing to a project, but adds nothing about valid values or what happens for inaccessible projects.

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?

"Get Secret Storages" names the resource and the plural implies a collection listing, and the endpoint path confirms it is a project-scoped GET. But the phrasing largely restates the tool name and never distinguishes this list operation from the sibling get_secret_storage (singular) or get_secret_storage_references.

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 get_secret_storage or get_secret_storage_references. There is no mention of pagination, filtering, or whether an empty project returns an empty list, so the agent must infer everything about selection and result handling.

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