classifinder_scan

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the output format (type, severity, confidence, remediation) and mentions parameters. However, it does not cover side effects, permissions, or potential risks, leaving gaps for a security-sensitive tool.

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 brief purpose statement, output summary, usage example, and enumerated parameters. Some redundancy exists between the narrative and the Args section, but overall it is concise and informative.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers purpose, parameters, and output format adequately. It could mention output schema details, but the description is sufficient for 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?

The description fully explains both parameters beyond the bare schema (which has 0% coverage). It defines 'text' as the content to scan and 'min_confidence' as a threshold with a default value, adding essential meaning for the agent.

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: scanning text for secrets/credentials and returning structured findings. The verb 'scan' and resource 'text for leaked secrets' are specific and distinguishable from the sibling tool 'classifinder_redact'.

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 explicit usage context ('Use this to check if text contains API keys, passwords, tokens...'), clearly identifying when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or contrast with the sibling tool 'classifinder_redact'.

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