get_secrets_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that referencedKeys are key names inferred from application code and 'never the values', which is a critical privacy/security trait. It does not mention caching or data freshness in the main description, but that is covered in the schema description for maxAgeSeconds, so no extra credit is needed there.

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 exactly two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states what the tool returns, and the second explains when to use it. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description names the return fields (rotation status, rotation interval, referencedKeys) and clarifies what they mean. It also covers typical use cases and is well-suited for a tool with one optional parameter. The schema description adds freshness behavior, making the overall definition complete.

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 100% for maxAgeSeconds, and the schema description is exceptionally detailed, explaining the advisory nature, dataHealth reporting, and that nothing re-reads AWS on a tool call. While the main description adds no parameter info, the schema provides the necessary semantics, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource 'all Secrets Manager secrets' with precise attributes (rotation status, rotation interval, referencedKeys). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling overview tools like get_parameter_overview or get_cognito_overview.

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 provides explicit scenarios for when to call the tool: 'checking which secrets exist', 'confirming rotation is enabled before a security review', and 'before writing code that reads a secret'. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, which would elevate it to a 5.

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