leak-secure-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get list'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The mention of '35+ types' hints at a static list, but more context would help.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource, and the additional context ('35+ types', 'that can be detected') earns its place by clarifying scope. This is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns (a list of secret types) but lacks details on format, ordering, or how it integrates with siblings. For a read-only tool, this is passable but could be more complete with behavioral context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by focusing on the tool's purpose.

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 action ('Get list') and resource ('all supported secret types'), specifying what the tool does. It adds useful context about quantity ('35+ types') and purpose ('that can be detected'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate_secret' or 'scan_code', which might also involve secret types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., before scanning or validation), or exclusions. With siblings like 'analyze_security' and 'scan_repository', users are left to infer usage based on the name alone.

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