check_for_leaks

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. It states the tool checks for 'potential secret leaks based on leak patterns,' implying a read-only analysis, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, what the output format is, or if it logs or stores the text. This leaves significant gaps for a tool handling sensitive data.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (handling sensitive text analysis), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'leak pattern', how results are returned, or any error handling, leaving the agent with inadequate context for safe and effective use.

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 33% (only the 'text' parameter has a description). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'text' implicitly but doesn't explain 'worldId' or 'sessionId'. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, resulting in a baseline score.

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: 'Check if text contains potential secret leaks based on leak patterns.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('text'), and criteria ('potential secret leaks based on leak patterns'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, as no obvious sibling performs similar text analysis for leaks.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as when text should be checked (e.g., before sharing or storing), and doesn't mention any sibling tools that might handle related tasks like data validation or security scanning.

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