list_secrets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: values are never returned, and it enumerates the returned metadata fields (name, category, description, usage, timestamps). It does not mention pagination or ordering, keeping it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its key constraint, followed by the return shape and a downstream usage hint. No filler, nothing repeated.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what is missing: the scope (all tenant secrets), the non-exposure guarantee, the return fields, and how to consume the result. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully explains what to do with the returned 'name' field (use it as secret_ref in api_config), which is more than the empty schema conveys.

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 (all tenant secrets), and immediately scopes it with '(sem expor valores)', which both clarifies the operation and reassures the agent it is a metadata-only read. It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling mutation tools create_secret, update_secret and delete_secret.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance against siblings, but the final sentence ('Use o campo "name" como secret_ref em api_config') implies the purpose is to discover secret references for later configuration. Usage is implied rather than stated, which fits a 3.

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