list_secrets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states the security-critical behavior that 'values are never included' and details the returned metadata fields (key name, expiry time, read count), compensating for the missing output schema. Lacks pagination or rate limit disclosure.

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?

Three tightly constructed sentences: purpose (sentence 1), behavioral safety (sentence 2), and output structure (sentence 3). Front-loaded with the core action, zero redundancy, every clause adds value beyond the structured fields.

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 zero-parameter list operation, the description adequately compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating the returned metadata fields. Could be improved by noting pagination behavior or maximum result limits when listing 'all' secrets.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, establishing baseline 4. The description correctly omits parameter discussion since none exist, and the 'all active secrets' phrasing implies no filtering parameters are required.

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 specific verb (List) + resource (secrets) + scope (active secrets in Sirr vault). The 'metadata only' and 'values are never included' clauses clearly distinguish from sibling get_secret, establishing this as an enumeration tool rather than a retrieval 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?

Provides clear context about what the tool returns (metadata vs values), implicitly guiding the agent to use get_secret for actual values. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'when-not' conditions (e.g., 'do not use for retrieving secret values, use get_secret instead').

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