list-secrets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata (names, tags, expiration status) but never values, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool that likely accesses sensitive data.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key constraints ('never values'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (listing secrets with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by specifying what is returned (metadata) and what isn't (values). However, it could be more complete by addressing authentication, data scope (e.g., all secrets vs. user-specific), or response format, which are relevant for an agent's understanding.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'tags' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 the action ('List all available secrets') and the resource ('secrets'), specifying what information is included ('with their tags and expiration status') and excluded ('never values'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-secret' (which retrieves values) and 'create-secret'/'update-secret' (which modify 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 implies usage for retrieving metadata about secrets, not their actual values, which helps differentiate from 'get-secret'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export-env' or 'security-check', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., authentication needs).

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