secret_scanner__scan_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about the operation's behavior beyond the one-line purpose. It does not state that the scan is read-only, whether it touches the network, whether it can be slow on large files, or what kinds of secrets it recognizes. For a tool with zero structured behavioral metadata this is a clear gap.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently written, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than deliberate restraint.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only-style scanner with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more work explaining expected results and how it differs from the many sibling scanners — an agent must infer both.

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%, with both 'path' and 'entropy' fully documented in the schema, including the default value for entropy. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Scan a single file') plus the target of the scan ('exposed secrets and API keys'), which is concrete and readable. The word 'single' implicitly separates it from directory or batch scanning, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 only implied by scope: an agent can infer it should call this when it has one file in hand rather than a tree of files. There is no statement of when to prefer scan_text, scan_directory, scan_git, or scan_agent_history, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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