secret_scanner__scan_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuinely useful non-schema behavior: automatic skipping of node_modules, .git, dist, and binary files. However, it says nothing about whether the scan is read-only, how large scans behave, or what the findings look like, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the behavioral note follows. Slightly terse for a six-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description is the only place an agent can learn behavioral context. It covers purpose and default exclusions but says nothing about return format or how the baseline parameter interacts with results, leaving a real gap.

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 all six parameters (path, entropy, exclude, include, baseline, maxFiles) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond hinting at the default skip behavior; baseline 3 applies 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 and resource: 'Recursively scan a directory for exposed secrets and API keys.' The scope word 'directory' distinguishes it implicitly from secret_scanner__scan_file, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the word 'directory' versus the sibling scan_file/scan_git/scan_agent_history tools, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance.

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