list_integration_secrets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination and filtering behavior, which is helpful, but lacks critical details: authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's safe for read-only operations. The return format is vaguely described as 'Response data containing Integration Secret Object(s)', without structure or examples.

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 structured with sections for Args and Returns, which aids readability. However, it includes parameter details that conflict with the schema, adding confusion rather than clarity. The core purpose is stated upfront, but the mismatched details reduce overall effectiveness.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and nested objects in the schema, the description is incomplete. It attempts to document parameters but contradicts the schema, and lacks behavioral context like authentication or error handling. For a tool handling sensitive data (secrets), this is inadequate.

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 1 parameter ('request') with 0% description coverage, and the schema provides no details on properties. The description lists 3 parameters (page, page_size, filter_type) that don't appear in the schema, creating a contradiction. This misalignment means parameter semantics are effectively undocumented and misleading.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('integration secrets'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_assistants' or 'list_connections' beyond the resource name, nor does it specify scope (e.g., all secrets vs. filtered).

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions, or context for listing secrets (e.g., after creation, for configuration). With sibling tools like 'create_integration_secret' and 'delete_integration_secret', usage context is implied but not stated.

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