analyze_secrets

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the read-only nature plus the specific data window ('most recent ~500 audit events'). It does not mention rate limits or refresh/ordering semantics, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then return shape. It is dense but each sentence carries weight; the single long final section is slightly packed but not wasteful.

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 read-only analysis tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape ('{ total, expired, stale, neverAccessed... }'), the data window, and guidance on interpreting results, which is everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly.

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 four parameters are already fully documented in the schema (scope enum, orgId, teamId, projectPath with conditions). The description only alludes to 'secrets in scope' and adds no syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline 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+resource ('cross-reference the secrets in scope with recent audit events') and the concrete output ('usage profile and rotation/retirement suggestions'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like health_check and audit_log.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('quarterly hygiene check or input to a planner') plus named alternatives and the conditions that select them ('prefer health_check for decay-only triage and audit_log to inspect access timelines for one key'). Nothing is left to inference.

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