detect_secrets_and_pii

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers key behavioral facts: code is never sent externally, and detected values are returned only as short masked evidence. This is exactly the kind of disclosure an agent needs for a security scanner. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or performance characteristics, so not 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?

Three short paragraphs, each earning its place: scope of detection first, then routing guidance to alternatives, then privacy/return behavior. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary; the description instead supplies the scope, the alternative-tool routing, and the data-handling guarantees. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 both parameters (code, filename) are already documented in the schema, including the display-only nature of filename. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

Names a specific verb (detect) and precise resource scope: secrets (API keys/passwords/tokens), Korean-format PII (resident registration numbers, phone numbers), and internal network addresses. It explicitly positions itself as a subset check versus the broader scan_code / scan_path siblings, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

States the triggering scenario ('is there a key/PII in this code?') and the exclusion condition explicitly, naming the alternative tools (scan_code / scan_path) for full security checks and noting they include this detection. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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