List secrets accessible to the current agent run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the authorization class 'board_or_agent', providing extra context. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or what happens if no secrets are found.

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?

Extremely concise, two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides technical details (HTTP method, path, auth). Could be improved by front-loading the purpose and moving technical details to a separate line, but overall efficient with no wasted words.

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 no parameters, rich annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention that the secrets are returned as a list or that they are scoped to the current agent run, but this is already implied. The description adds the authorization class, which is useful.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly mentions no parameters are needed, which is sufficient. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 secrets accessible to the current agent run, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pc_get_companies_by_company_id_secrets by specifying the scope ('current agent run'). The inclusion of the HTTP endpoint and authorization class adds clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or point to sibling tools like pc_get_companies_by_company_id_secrets for company-level secrets. The agent must infer usage from the title alone.

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