secret_scanner__scan_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add real value by disclosing the built-in skip list (node_modules, .git, dist, binaries) — a behavior an agent could not otherwise predict. It stops short of covering what a finding looks like, the file-count ceiling (only in the schema), or whether the built-in skips can be overridden by the exclude parameter.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded ahead of the secondary skip behavior. Nothing in it could be cut without losing 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?

Six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description must explain the result shape, which it does not — an agent learns nothing about what a finding contains or how findings are reported. The scan behavior itself is well covered, so this is adequate rather than complete.

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%, so the six parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description's mention of automatic skips gives useful context around the exclude/include parameters, but it adds no syntax or precedence information beyond what the schema already says.

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 and resource ("Recursively scan a directory") plus the target of the scan (exposed secrets and API keys), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling file/text/git variants in the secret_scanner family, relying on the name's scope word to do that work.

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 scope (a whole directory, recursively) implicitly signals when to pick this over scan_file or scan_text, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. An agent must infer the routing decision from the tool name alone.

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