scan_git_secrets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly communicates that the tool scans commit history and uses trufflehog, but it does not disclose whether remote repositories are cloned, whether authentication is needed, or whether any state is written. This is adequate but leaves meaningful 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: two short sentences state the action and the underlying scanner without redundant details. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 relatively simple tool with fully documented parameters, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description is mostly sufficient. The main weakness is the lack of comparison to sibling tools like scan_secrets, but the core behavior and scope are adequately described.

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 parameters are already fully documented by the input schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning to repo_url, target_id, scope_include, or scope_exclude beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Scan a git repository for leaked secrets in commit history.' It also names the engine (trufflehog) and the types of secrets it finds, which clarifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from generic secret scanners such as the sibling scan_secrets.

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 says what the tool does but never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives like scan_secrets or other recon/scanner tools. It provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative guidance, so the agent has to infer the usage context from the name and description alone.

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