List variable references

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 genuinely valuable behavioral context beyond those: it discloses that the tool returns reference templates (not actual secret values) that are meant to be injected into another service's secrets — preventing the wrong expectation of seeing raw secret data. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence of roughly 25 words that front-loads the usage trigger, states the resource, includes a concrete example, and contains zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 listing tool, the core purpose is well covered and annotations carry the safety profile. However, there is no output schema yet no mention of return format, the parameters remain undocumented, and the distinction from secrets_list is only implicit — leaving gaps that could cause an agent to invoke it incorrectly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely hints at the 'service' parameter through the phrase 'inject into another service's secrets.' The required 'project' parameter is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, and the optionality/relationship of 'service' is not clarified. This is a significant gap given zero schema help.

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 names a specific action — 'see the available reference-variable templates' — with a clarifying example ('like postgres connection strings') and the injection use case. It is distinguishable from the confusable sibling secrets_list (which would show actual secrets) by the 'templates... inject into another service's secrets' framing, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 opens with 'Use this when the user wants to see...' which gives a clear trigger condition for invocation. However, it provides no exclusions and no explicit routing to the highly confusable alternatives in the sibling list (secrets_list, secrets_set, secrets_delete), so an agent has no guidance on when to choose this tool over them.

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