sqo_secret_scrub

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that audit output is 'safe masked fingerprints only', which tells the agent results are sanitized. However, it never says whether the workspace audit is read-only, whether redaction mutates files or just returns text, what permissions are required, or how findings are reported.

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?

One compact sentence with the primary purpose front-loaded and the output-safety note parenthetically attached. Nothing is wasted, though cramming two modes into a single sentence slightly blurs which is primary.

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?

The description adequately explains both modes and the masked-output guarantee, which is the most important behavior for a secrets tool. Given full schema coverage and no output schema, the remaining gaps (mutation semantics for redaction, findings format) are modest but real.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameter roles ('workspace' for scanning, 'text' for redaction) but adds no format, size, or precedence detail 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Audit workspace source files for hardcoded secrets') and clearly separates a second mode ('redact secrets from text'). It also states the output character (masked fingerprints), so an agent knows the result is not raw secrets. It does not distinguish itself from any sibling by name, but none of the listed siblings obviously overlap.

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 'or' construction implies the two modes map to the two parameters, and the schema descriptions confirm which parameter selects which mode. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on combining both parameters, and no named alternative for related needs (e.g. a CI or shield tool).

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