ppp_secrets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it delivers: it discloses that plaintext `password` is always stripped via formatting.strip_sensitive_fields, and that an unconfigured device returns an empty list rather than an error. It omits operational details like authentication requirements or pagination, keeping it just below the top mark.

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 returned-field list and the security note are well front-loaded, but the body wastes space on internal references ('See test_ppp_secrets_never_exposes_password', 'See "PPP/PPPoE secrets" below') that add little for an calling agent. The password-stripping rationale is repeated at length.

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?

An output schema exists and the description does not need to explain return format, yet it still documents the returned fields and covers edge cases (empty list, sensitive-field stripping). For a single-parameter read tool this is thorough, with only minor gaps around auth/usage preconditions.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter (device_name) is never mentioned in the description. The parameter is self-evident and shared with many siblings, so the meaning is derivable, but the description adds no explicit semantic value beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb (List) and resource (CONFIGURED PPP/PPPoE secrets at /ppp/secret path), enumerates the returned fields, and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling `ppp_active` ('currently-CONNECTED sessions'). An agent can distinguish it from the active-session tool without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool against its closest sibling (configured dial-in credentials vs. `ppp_active`'s live sessions), which gives clear when-to-use context. It does not, however, address the sibling mutators (`add_ppp_secret`, `remove_ppp_secret`) or state prerequisites, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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