list_secrets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's additional statement 'sem expor valores' is valuable beyond the schema: it guarantees that secret values are not returned. It also discloses the exact metadata fields returned, giving the agent a clear behavioral contract.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, immediately states the critical 'does not expose values' constraint, lists return fields, and then gives practical integration guidance for the returned name field. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying both the scope (all tenant secrets) and the return content (name, category, description, usage, timestamps). It also tells the agent how to use the returned name in api_config and db_config, which is complete enough for a simple list operation.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema leaves nothing to explain. The description adds no parameter semantics but provides useful field-level semantics for the returned 'name' field, which is not required for parameters but enriches the agent's understanding of the output.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Lista todos os secrets do tenant' (lists all tenant secrets), and clarifies the operation is read-only and does not expose values. It also summarizes the returned fields and notes how the 'name' field is used downstream, making the tool's purpose unmistakable even without the sibling context.

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 makes the usage context clear by stating it lists all tenant secrets and does not expose values, and it gives downstream guidance for using the returned 'name'. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus related alternatives such as create_secret, update_secret, delete_secret, or list_versions, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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