List secrets

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral detail: values are masked by default and reveal:true is required to see actual values. This is beyond the annotations and directly relevant to invoking the tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger and followed by the key behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant detail.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers when to use it, the service/project scoping, and the masking behavior. A hint about the exact return shape would be nice, but the title and description carry the agent far enough.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'reveal' and clarifies that secrets are scoped to a service or project, but it does not describe the 'project' parameter semantics directly, and the schema already documents the optional-service nuance. Partial compensation, but with a clear gap.

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 operation ('see environment variables/secrets') and its resource scope ('configured for a Lizard service or project'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like secrets_set, secrets_delete, and secrets_refs, which involve different actions.

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 phrase 'Use this when the user wants to see...' gives an explicit usage trigger. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for listing secrets.

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