vault_entries_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the returned fields and an important security invariant ("Never a secret's value — no tool returns one"), which preempts an agent hunting for values elsewhere. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether the listing is complete or paginated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the returned-field taxonomy. The em-dash list of tool mappings is dense but each element is necessary for routing to the correct sibling.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must describe the return shape—which it does, covering ID, name, tier, secret kind, and signed operations. It does not address pagination, ordering, or empty-result behavior, a minor gap for a discovery tool.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so the baseline applies; the description correctly conveys that no filtering input is accepted. The optional nature of the inline filter parameters is assumed to be captured in the schema descriptions.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("List the vault entries") with a stated scope ("this agent may use") that cleanly separates it from the four action siblings. It also enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what discovery yields.

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?

By mapping secret kinds to their consumer tools (web-service → vault_call, SSH → vault_ssh_exec, wallet → vault_pay, signing key → vault_sign), it implicitly tells the agent this is the discovery step before invoking those tools. It never states the exclusion explicitly (e.g. "call this before X"), so guidance is strong but inferred.

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