secrets_hunt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses 'Read-only, non-destructive' and describes the action of pulling page and JS bundles, which indicates network fetching. However, it does not detail potential side effects like rate limiting, nor the output structure, though an output schema exists.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the main action, lists secret types, and includes safety information. Every word earns its place with 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?

The tool is relatively simple: one parameter, no annotations, but an output schema exists. The description covers the operational behavior (pulling and scanning) and safety (read-only, non-destructive). It lacks explicit usage alternatives, but for the tool's core function, the description is sufficiently complete given the output schema covers return details.

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 schema has one required parameter (`url`) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description says 'Pull a target's page' which implies the URL parameter, but it does not explain the URL format, whether full URL is required, or any constraints. This adds little meaning beyond the schema's bare type and name.

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's function: it pulls a target's page and JS bundles and flags leaked secrets. It lists specific secret types (cloud keys, tokens, JWTs, private keys, provider keys), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from generic siblings like `hunt` and `http_get` by focusing on secret scanning from page and JS bundles.

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 implies the use case (finding leaked secrets in a target's page or JS bundles) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like `hunt` or `http_get`, nor does it mention any exclusions or when not to use it. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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