secret_scanner__scan_agent_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral value: output is deduplicated ('each secret is reported once with how often it appears') and it explains the practical consequence (rotate the secret). It does not disclose read-only status, permissions, where transcripts live, or performance/rate characteristics, which is a notable gap for an annotation-free tool.

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 front-loading what is scanned, then why it matters, then the reporting behavior. No redundancy and no filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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 single-optional-parameter scan with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers target scope, rationale, and output shape adequately. The main omission is any hint of scope limitations such as false positives or where the transcripts are found, but nothing essential to invoking the tool 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?

Only one optional boolean parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'entropy' with useful context about why it defaults to false. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') plus a precisely bounded resource: transcripts left by named coding agents (Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Continue). The scope alone separates it from the sibling scan_text/scan_file/scan_directory/scan_git tools without needing to name them.

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?

It gives a clear context for use by explaining the significance: a secret in a chat was already sent to the model provider and should be rotated, so the agent knows why this scan is warranted. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when a different secret_scanner sibling should be preferred.

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