analyze_secrets

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only and uses the most recent ~500 audit events. Since no annotations are provided, this carries the full burden. It doesn't mention potential side effects (likely none) and is sufficiently transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core function first, followed by usage, behavioral note, and output format. It is efficient but includes useful elaborations that could be slightly condensed.

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?

The description provides the return format (JSON structure) and actionable hints (candidates for cleanup). It covers behavior, usage, and output. However, it lacks details on prerequisites like permissions or error conditions. With no annotations or output schema, it is mostly complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, such as how parameters affect the analysis. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool cross-references secrets with audit events to produce a usage profile and suggestions. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning that health_check is for decay-only triage and audit_log for inspecting a single key timeline.

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 explicit usage guidance: use as a quarterly hygiene check or input to a planner. It also gives clear alternatives: prefer health_check for decay-only triage and audit_log for single key timeline.

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