leak-secure-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions analysis components but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as execution time, resource intensity, permission requirements, whether it modifies data, or output format. For a security analysis tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists key analysis components. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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?

Given the complexity of security analysis, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the analysis entails operationally, how results are returned, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (owner, repo, branch) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying repository context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 performs 'comprehensive security analysis on a repository' and lists specific components (secret detection, vulnerability assessment, risk scoring, compliance status). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_secret_types' (focused only on secret types) and 'scan_code' (likely narrower scope), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'scan_repository' which might overlap.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_repository', 'scan_code', or 'validate_secret' is provided. The description implies a comprehensive analysis but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions (e.g., when a simpler scan might suffice).

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