Wallet Secret Guardian

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

Annotations provide no safety hints, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that any finding results in NO_COMMIT, that a sanitized_output and masked redacted_sample are returned, and that the real value is never returned or stored server-side. This is highly transparent.

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 three sentences long, starts with the tool's purpose, and packs essential details (scan targets, outcome, return behavior) without redundancy. The inclusion of the price is a minor but useful addition, and every sentence earns its place.

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 is complete for a content-scanning tool: it explains the tool's role, what it detects, the consequence of detection (NO_COMMIT), and the return format. An output schema exists, and the description covers the key return fields, making it sufficiently comprehensive.

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% for all three parameters, and the description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool scans for BIP-39 seed phrases, private keys, wallet addresses, and API keys near wallet terminology. It also distinguishes itself from other DCL evaluators by noting that wallet secrets have no safe threshold, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for post-action evaluation and emphasizes its role as a strict guardrail for wallet secrets. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like dcl_evaluate_secrets or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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