find_secrets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the behavior of running regex patterns on a file's strings and details the return structure (path, totals, truncated, categories_run, by_category). It does not explicitly state read-only or side effects but implies no modification. The mention of a truncation flag adds transparency.

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 well-structured with a one-liner, Args section, and Returns section. Every part adds value; no redundant information. It is concise despite the length needed to cover parameters and return format.

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?

Given 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains every parameter, default behaviors, and the full return structure. The truncation flag and categories_run field provide essential runtime context.

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 0%, so description compensates fully. Each parameter is explained beyond schema: path ('file to scan'), detector_set (comma-separated, default, special 'all'), min_length (context of extract_strings), max_per_category (default cap). Return format is also detailed.

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 clearly states 'Run the regex leak catalog over *path*'s string table', specifying verb (run), resource (regex leak catalog), and scope (on path's string table). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_strings (just extraction) and verify_* (verifying specific secrets) by focusing on running a catalog of detectors.

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 description provides clear context: it explains the default detector_set excludes noisy patterns, how to use 'all', and default values for min_length and max_per_category. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_leak_scan or when not to use it.

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