Get Workspace Secrets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the critical non-obvious runtime semantics that secrets are injected as FILE PATHS, not literal values, and references the skill helper. It stops short of covering auth requirements, pagination, or side effects, but for a read-only lister this is strong context.

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 purpose and critical semantics are front-loaded and the closing 'FILE PATHS, not literal values' note earns its place, but the full response-shape JSON block is largely redundant when an output schema already exists, adding length without new 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?

For a single-parameter read tool that has an output schema, the description covers purpose, return semantics, and the crucial file-path caveat. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing, though the redundant return-shape block slightly dilutes focus.

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?

Only one parameter, workspace_name, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for the parameter beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.

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 ('available secret keys') plus the scope of platform grouping and mapping guidance. It is clearly distinct from all siblings, none of which expose workspace secret keys, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

It implies when to use it — 'helps agents pick the right secret_vars mapping for a task' — and points to the discover-secrets skill for the read_secret pattern, but gives no explicit when-not conditions or alternative tools to compare against.

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