List Secrets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what information is returned (view counts, expiry, consumption status), which helps the agent understand the output format and scope. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List previously shared secrets') and adds essential details ('current status — view counts, expiry, and whether they've been consumed') without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent), the description is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly. It explains what the tool does and what information it provides, though it could mention pagination or sorting if relevant, but isn't required for basic understanding.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose and output. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 ('previously shared secrets') with specific scope details ('view counts, expiry, and whether they've been consumed'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_secret' (creation) and 'view_secret' (single secret) by emphasizing listing multiple secrets with status information.

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 implies usage for viewing status of multiple secrets, suggesting when to use it (to see list with status details). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'view_secret' for single secrets or 'check_status' for status checks without listing. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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