List secrets

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: deterministic ordering (created_at desc, then id desc) and the default-scope rule that an unfiltered call returns the deduplicated union of org, project, and user secrets the caller may list. It does not mention pagination limits or response shape, keeping it from a 5.

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 dense sentences with no filler; every clause carries information. Slightly better front-loading would lead with the scope rule rather than ordering, but nothing is wasted.

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 10-parameter list tool with no output schema and strong schema descriptions, the description covers the two things the schema cannot convey: ordering and default scope. Pagination and sort defaults are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 coverage is 90%, so the 3 baseline already applies. The description goes further by explaining the effect of omitting the owner filter, which maps directly onto owner_kind/owner_project_id and tells the agent what an unset owner parameter actually does.

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 name and title ('secrets_list' / 'List secrets') make the verb+resource unambiguous, and the description refines it with ordering and scope semantics. It never explicitly states the purpose in prose and does not distinguish this from the sibling 'grant_secrets_list', so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description notes what happens 'without an owner filter', which hints that owner_kind/owner_project_id narrow the result. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against alternatives such as secrets_get or grant_secrets_list.

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