Secret Scan (gitleaks)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by explaining the effect of includeHistory on scanning every commit and the persistence of secrets in history, which is not stated in the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then a focused, meaningful usage note. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a read-only scan tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential function and the key parameter nuance. It lacks explicit information about the return format or that it produces a report of findings, but these are inferable from the tool type and the read-only annotation, so the gap is minor.

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 already provides descriptions for both path and includeHistory (100% coverage). The tool description adds extra semantic value for includeHistory by explaining why scanning history matters, which is more than the schema's 'Scan full git history' phrase. It does not add anything for path, but the schema description is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('detection') and resource ('secrets via gitleaks'), with the method ('entropy-based') making it clear what kind of scanning this is. This differentiates it from sibling tools like cve_scan or semgrep_scan, which target different categories of issues.

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 explicitly instructs when to set includeHistory=true and explains the rationale (secrets in history remain exploitable), which is direct usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative scanning tools or state when not to use it, leaving some implicit inference for sibling selection.

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