k8s_list_secrets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'values are not shown', which is useful context about what information is omitted. However, it doesn't describe other critical behaviors: whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), what the output format is, if there are pagination limits, or if it requires specific RBAC permissions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core functionality. Every element 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (listing Kubernetes secrets), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic action and one important limitation (values not shown), but doesn't address output format, error conditions, or permission requirements. For a Kubernetes tool that could have security implications, more context would be helpful.

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 100%, with both parameters ('namespace' and 'all_namespaces') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('secrets in a namespace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like k8s_get_secret by specifying it lists multiple secrets rather than retrieving a single one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from k8s_list_configmaps or other list tools beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over k8s_get_secret (for single secret details) or k8s_get_all (for broader resource listing), nor does it specify prerequisites like required permissions or namespace context. The sibling tools include many list operations, but no comparative context is given.

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