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 discloses behavioral traits such as the 10MB size limit and 'enhanced validation,' but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or error handling. This is a moderate disclosure given the absence of annotations, but more context would improve transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key constraints. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 complexity (scanning for secrets with size limits), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and size limit but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. This is adequate for basic use but has clear gaps for full contextual understanding.

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 both parameters ('code' and 'filePath') with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'code' parameter handles up to 10MB, but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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's purpose with a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('code snippet or file content'), specifying what it scans for ('secrets and sensitive information'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scan_repository' by focusing on code content rather than repositories, and from 'validate_secret' by scanning for secrets rather than validating them.

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 by mentioning 'supports up to 10MB of code content with enhanced validation,' suggesting it's for scanning code up to that size. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_repository' for repositories or 'analyze_security' for broader analysis, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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