List secret providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, signaling a safe read operation. The description adds the HTTP method and authorization class (board_or_agent), which provides useful but minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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 very brief: one line for the action and one line for the HTTP method and auth class. It is concise but slightly technical. Every sentence earns its place, though the second line could be more user-friendly.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks parameter explanations and usage guidance. For a simple list tool with one parameter and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It only barely covers the minimum.

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 0%, meaning the description must explain the parameters. However, it does not describe the required 'companyId' parameter (nested under 'path'). The agent receives no cues about what to provide or the parameter's purpose.

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 title 'List secret providers' clearly indicates a listing operation. The description reinforces the verb+resource pattern. While the resource 'secret providers' is not further defined, it is distinct from siblings like health checks or config retrieval 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pc_get_companies_by_company_id_secrets or pc_get_secret_provider_configs_by_id. The agent is left to infer context from the resource name alone.

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