scan_secrets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two important traits: matches are redacted in the output and results are heuristic candidates requiring manual verification. It does not say whether the operation is read-only or whether it writes anything, but the false-positive warning is genuinely 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by output and reliability caveats. No filler; every sentence adds information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately covers the return behavior (redacted matches) and the confidence level of results. The only gap is the ambiguous `path` argument, which is left entirely to a bare schema title.

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 0% and the single `path` parameter is documented only as "Path". The description implies it points at a file whose strings are extracted, but it does not clarify whether this is an on-disk path, a previously extracted artifact, or what format is expected.

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?

States a specific verb (scan) and target (a file's extracted strings) plus what it looks for: credential/token/key patterns and high-entropy blobs. It is distinguishable from scan_strings by the secret-pattern focus, though the relationship to scan_strings (which presumably produces the strings) is never made explicit.

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 phrase "a file's extracted strings" hints that this fits after string extraction, and the closing caveat implies a triage workflow, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (scan_strings, full_audit) is given. Usage is only implied.

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