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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the detection technique (pattern matching and entropy analysis) but does not state the return format, false positives, or whether it is read-only. This is a moderate gap for a detection tool.

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?

Single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, no filler.

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 single-param tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose and method but omits what the tool returns (e.g., list of matches, flags). This is a notable gap for an agent to correctly use the output.

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 text parameter is fully described in the schema as 'Text, code, or configuration to scan for secrets'; the description adds no additional parameter detail. With 100% schema coverage, baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool detects hardcoded secrets, API keys, and credentials in text, specifying the method (pattern matching and entropy analysis). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which perform secret detection.

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 context: scanning text/code/config for secrets. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but given the sibling list, no other tool overlaps with secret detection. Clear context without exclusions.

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