scan_for_secrets

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 fully discloses the scan is local and secret never transmitted. It details output components: verdict, secret type, provider, severity, line:column, masked excerpt, remediation note. This is comprehensive and honest.

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 paragraph of 5 sentences, efficiently front-loaded with the main action and use cases. Each sentence adds value: examples, output description, usage instruction, privacy note. Slightly lengthy but not wasteful.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, detected secrets, output details, privacy, and usage. It lacks explanation of the 'deep' parameter's behavior, which is only in schema. Otherwise, it is sufficiently complete.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond the schema; it focuses on overall behavior. Thus, no additional value for parameter semantics.

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 scans code/text/diff for leaked secrets and lists many detectable types. It specifies use cases before commits, pushes, PRs, or pasting. This is specific, verb+resource-driven, and distinguishes it from any general text scanner.

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 tells when to use: before commit, push, PR, or pasting. The instruction 'Use this on every diff/file you are about to share' is clear. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but the given context is sufficient.

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