fix_secrets

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: backs up shell history, adds gitignore, returns structured JSON with health scores, and mentions visualization. No contradictions.

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?

Five sentences, each adding value. Front-loaded with main purpose. Slightly verbose but well-structured. Could be trimmed slightly without losing information.

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?

Comprehensive: explains return format (structured JSON with health scores), workflow (run scan_secrets first), edge cases (backup before cleanup, manual rotation instructions). No output schema, but description compensates well.

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 coverage is 100% (both params described). The description adds context: auto_fix covers shell history cleanup and gitignore; include_low_severity filters findings. This adds meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states it fixes leaked secrets with specific actions (auto-cleans shell history, adds .env to .gitignore, provides rotation instructions). It distinguishes from siblings like scan_secrets (scanning) and scan_summary (summarizing).

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?

Explicitly advises to run scan_secrets first to see what will be fixed, providing clear workflow guidance. Also explains tool scope: auto-fixes and manual rotation instructions.

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