scan_secrets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool scans for, it doesn't describe how it behaves: whether it's read-only or modifies files, what permissions it requires, how it handles errors, whether it has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a security scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes specific examples of what it scans for. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.

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 the complexity of a security scanning tool, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after scanning: whether it returns a list, generates a report, logs findings, or requires follow-up actions. For a tool that likely produces important security findings, more context about output and behavior is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('projectPath' and 'patterns') adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of patterns or clarification on path formats. With high schema coverage, the baseline score 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's purpose: scanning source code for exposed secrets like API keys, tokens, passwords, private keys, and database connection strings. It specifies the verb 'escanea' (scans) and resource 'código fuente' (source code), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scan_code_vulnerabilities' or 'scan_dependencies', which likely focus on different security aspects.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'generate_security_report' or explain how this scan differs from 'scan_code_vulnerabilities' or 'scan_dependencies'. There's no context about prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or typical use cases.

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