secret_scanner__scan_agent_history

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose report semantics — each secret appears once with an occurrence count — and the remediation implication, but says nothing about which paths on disk are read, whether access permissions are needed, whether the scan is read-only, or how long it takes on a large history.

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?

Three tight sentences: scope, consequence, and result shape, in that order. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema, and the most decision-relevant fact (which transcripts) leads.

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 zero-required-parameter discovery scan with no output schema, the description covers what is scanned, why it matters, and how findings are deduplicated and counted. The remaining gap is practical detail — the actual transcript locations and whether the scan can be narrowed — but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `entropy` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its non-default behavior for transcripts. The description adds no interpretation of that flag or of what gets flagged by default, so this is the baseline-3 case where the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb (scan) and a precise, unusual resource scope: the transcripts kept on this machine by named agents (Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Continue). That scope cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory/scan_git variants, which cover pasted input, arbitrary files, directories, and git history instead.

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?

Gives a clear reason to reach for this tool specifically: secrets found here were already sent to the model provider and should be rotated, which is a different remediation posture than scanning a file before commit. It never names an alternative or says when not to use it (e.g., 'for arbitrary directories use scan_directory'), so it stops short of explicit routing.

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