sops_list_secrets

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the responsibility. It discloses that it reads key names from encrypted YAML and metadata from the _meta_unencrypted block, and states no decryption is needed. This provides good behavioral insight, though it could be more explicit about being read-only.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds the critical behavioral detail. Every sentence 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 input-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It could benefit from mentioning what kind of metadata is returned or that the tool is purely read-only, but it is sufficiently complete given the low complexity.

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?

The single parameter is fully described in the schema ('Contents of a secrets.enc.yaml file'), and the description adds value by explaining how the content is used (reading key names and metadata). This goes beyond the schema's bare 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 tool lists 'key names and metadata from a SOPS-encrypted file.' The verb 'List' and the resource are precise. It distinguishes from sibling tools by highlighting that no decryption is needed, which is unique among the sops_ tools.

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 implies this tool is for read-only inspection without decryption, setting clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., sops_add_secrets for modifications). Given many siblings, explicit when/when-not would be ideal, but the context is strong.

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