List secrets

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds important behavior beyond that: values are never returned, the response contains only names/events/image restrictions, and a missing secret may still exist at a higher level. This sets correct expectations for response contents and hierarchical lookup without contradicting the 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?

Three short sentences with no filler: the core listing behavior is front-loaded, followed by the critical caveat about values, and then the hierarchical nuance. Every sentence contributes distinct, useful information.

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?

The description is complete for a list operation: it specifies the scoping dimension, describes the response shape, and warns about hierarchy behavior. Pagination and ID requirements are already fully handlded by the schema and output schema, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3 even when the description adds no parameter-specific details. The description's mention of repository/organization/instance-wide mirrors the scope enum, while the schema already documents required IDs, admin-only global scope, pagination, and clamping behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists'), a clear resource ('secrets'), and the scoping levels ('repository, organization or instance-wide'). It also distinguishes the list operation from get by explicitly noting that values are never returned and that the response contains names, events, and image restrictions.

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 clearly frames this as a one-level listing tool and states that values are not available even here, which signals that it is not the tool for retrieving secret values. The note that a pipeline sees all three levels provides practical context for interpreting results, though it does not explicitly name get_secret as the alternative.

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