secret_scanner__scan_git

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful scan semantics, especially that history inspects added lines per commit and can find secrets deleted from files, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it modifies the repository, required permissions, or output behavior.

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?

The description is two tightly written sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core operation and then immediately clarifies the two modes and the special case that history mode detects deleted secrets.

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?

It covers the core purpose and mode semantics well, and the rich schema documents every parameter. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what findings look like or the safety profile, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

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 schema already documents all six parameters, including mode, range, baseline, entropy, and maxCommits. The description adds conceptual context about staged versus history scanning but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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: scanning a git repository for secrets, with the exact scope being what git says was added. It distinguishes itself from sibling file/directory scanners by focusing on staged changes and commit history, and explains the special value of history mode.

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 clearly explains when to choose staged mode (before a commit) versus history mode (every commit's added lines), and notes that history finds secrets deleted from files. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as scan_directory, but the mode-selection context is clear and has no misleading exclusions.

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