classifinder_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses that the tool returns structured findings with type, severity, confidence, and remediation guidance. It implies a read-only operation without explicit mutation statements.

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 extremely concise with 4 short sentences, front-loading the main action in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose, parameters, and output type. It could mention that the tool does not modify data, but overall it is complete for a scan tool.

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% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate fully. It explains 'text' as the text to scan and 'min_confidence' as a threshold with default, adding crucial meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verb 'scan' and resource 'text for leaked secrets and credentials', and clearly distinguishes from sibling 'classifinder_redact' by focusing on detection rather than redaction.

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 states to use this tool for checking API keys, passwords, etc., providing a clear context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to the sibling tool.

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