List configured secret references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing what the tool returns (names only) and, critically, what it deliberately withholds (secret values), which is a meaningful data-exposure guarantee.

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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and ends with the most important constraint. No filler, nothing to cut.

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 read-only enumeration tool with no output schema, the description covers the return semantics well (names, no values) but leaves the two filtering parameters unexplained. Adequate for the core call, incomplete for parameter usage.

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% and the two parameters (deviceId, deviceName) are entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The description offers no hint that these act as filters or how they combine, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (names from the protected Raccoon secret store) and clarifies the scope (names only, not values). It is clearly distinguishable from all listed siblings, none of which touch secrets, though it does not name a sibling to contrast with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. The phrase 'without returning secret values' implies this is for enumeration rather than retrieval, but the agent must infer when to call it versus anything else.

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