sentinel_scan_for_secrets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the method ('deterministic patterns and entropy') but omits critical traits: whether the scan is read-only, whether it scans recursively, how it handles binary files, whether it requires network access, or what the output format looks like. This leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and expected results.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and scope. The structure is ideal for quick parsing by an agent, earning top marks for conciseness despite the other gaps.

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 scanning tool with a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what triggers a 'secret' match, how deep the scan goes, whether it follows symlinks, or what the output schema contains (though an output schema exists, its details are not in the description). The agent lacks enough context to predict tool behavior and interpret results 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'path' can be a file or directory, which adds some meaning. However, it does not specify whether the path must be absolute, whether glob patterns are accepted, or what constitutes a valid path for the scan. This is minimal added value over the parameter name.

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 action (scan), a concrete resource (file or directory), and the target (hardcoded secrets) with a method (deterministic patterns and entropy). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like sentinel_audit_workspace or sentinel_run_test_suite, which target different concerns. The verb 'scan' plus the object 'hardcoded secrets' leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a git repo), conditions (e.g., before code review), or exclusions (e.g., not for detecting secrets at runtime). Without such context, an agent may misuse it or fail to know when it is the appropriate choice.

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