Secret Scanner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by detailing what it detects (AWS keys, GitHub tokens, etc.) and that it also 'checks that .env files are properly gitignored,' which is not derivable from annotations. This goes beyond minimal scoping and enriches the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a list of detected secret types, an additional .env check, and usage examples. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. The examples are practical and aid understanding without unnecessary padding, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use case and expected behavior. It names specific secret categories and the .env gitignore check, giving a good sense of what the tool does. It does not describe return format, but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool make this sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('project' and 'directory') already described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, and there is no extra detail to raise the 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 function: 'Scan project files for exposed secrets, API keys, tokens, and credentials.' It lists specific secret types and distinguishes itself from sibling scanners like depsonar_cve or depsonar_licenses by focusing on secrets. The verb 'scan' and explicit resource 'project files' make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied through examples like 'Scan my projects for exposed secrets' and 'Any leaked API keys in JobPin?', which indicate user intents that map to this tool. However, the description does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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