leak-secure-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond basic functionality by mentioning 'Enterprise-grade with rate limiting, retry logic, and comprehensive error handling,' which informs the agent about performance traits and reliability. However, it doesn't specify authentication requirements or potential side effects, leaving some gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose with specific details, and the second adds behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for quick comprehension.

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 (security scanning with behavioral traits) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and some behavioral aspects but lacks details on output format, error specifics, or integration with sibling tools. This is adequate for basic use but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent fully.

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 four parameters (owner, repo, branch, path) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Scan a GitHub repository') and resource ('for secrets and sensitive information'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'analyze_security' or 'scan_code' by focusing specifically on secret detection. It provides concrete details about what it detects ('35+ types of secrets including API keys, passwords, tokens, and credentials'), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 like 'analyze_security' or 'scan_code', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. While it implies usage for security scanning, it lacks explicit context for tool selection, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone without clear differentiation.

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