Secret Scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds beyond annotations by stating findings are redacted and implying safe analysis. It also hints at network path restrictions from the schema, providing useful 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, focused sentence that wastes no words. It front-loads the core purpose. A small trade-off is that some usage context is missing, but overall it is appropriately concise.

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 (4 parameters with low schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description could more fully explain the function of parameters and return values. The key behavioral info is present, but completeness for agent decision-making is marginal.

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 only 25% (only 'path' has a description). The description does not elaborate on the purpose or effect of parameters like maxFiles, maxFindings, or maxFileBytes. The baseline is low, and the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 scans text files for secret signatures (tokens, keys, assignments). It specifies the resource (text files) and the verb (scan) distinctly, and the mention of 'findings are always redacted' adds clarity. This differentiates it from sibling tools like sdlc_read_file or sdlc_search_code.

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 implies usage for security scanning but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sdlc_search_code for general text search). There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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