secret_scanner__scan_git

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the scan basis — only added lines per git's view, not deletions or the working tree as-is — which prevents wrong expectations. It does not say anything about read-only safety, cost/performance on large histories, or the shape of the response, leaving real gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope constraint before the mode explanation. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 6-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core decision (which mode and why) and the scanning semantics well. It leaves unaddressed the baseline-file workflow, the entropy default's effect, and limits on large repositories, which are the remaining things an agent might need.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is already documented inline, including the mode enum. The description reinforces why history mode matters but adds no syntax or interaction detail (e.g. how baseline, entropy, or maxCommits behave in combination), so 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 resource (a git repository) and narrows the scope to 'what git says was added', which separates it from the file/directory/text scanners in the sibling list. The parenthetical on staged vs history modes makes the operation unambiguous.

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 rule for choosing between the two modes and motivates history mode ('finds secrets that were deleted from the files but are still in the repository'). It never names an alternative sibling tool (e.g. scan_directory for plain working-tree scanning) or states when this tool should not be used, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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