List secret provider configurations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class, which are useful but not critical. The description does not mention pagination or filtering behavior, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 description is extremely concise with only two lines. It wastes no words and includes the key technical detail (HTTP method and path) without any fluff. It is well-structured for quick reading.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, read-only) and has an output schema and rich annotations. The description is minimally adequate but lacks parameter guidance and result description. Given the output schema exists, return values are not needed, but the description could be more helpful.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the missing parameter details. It does not explain what 'companyId' is or any constraints (e.g., format, required permissions). The schema only provides the name, so the description adds no semantic value.

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 'List secret provider configurations' with a specific verb and resource, and it is evident from the sibling list that this tool is distinct from related tools like pc_get_companies_by_company_id_secret_providers. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 mentions 'Authorization class: board' which hints at who can use it, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getting a single config or creating one). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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