detect_secrets_leak

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a non-destructive read-only operation ('scans') and discloses a cost of 0.015 USDC on Base L2, which is valuable context. However, it does not mention return format, whether payment is mandatory, rate limits, or any other side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, tightly worded sentence with the cost note in parentheses. It is front-loaded with the verb 'scans' and target types, with no wasted words. All sentences earn their place.

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?

The tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry full context. It does not specify how to construct the payload for the various input types, when/if the paymentSignature is required, or what the response looks like (e.g., list of found secrets, booleans, JSON report). An agent would be unsure how to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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%—both 'payload' and 'paymentSignature' have descriptions—so this meets the baseline. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema text; it merely mentions 'payloads' in a general sense without clarifying how to structure the payload for different content types (code vs logs vs payloads).

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 names a specific verb ('scans') and precise targets: AWS tokens, OpenAI keys, GitHub PATs, private keys, JWT secrets, across code/logs/payloads. It clearly states what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'secrets_entropy_scanner' or 'scan_dependency_cve', so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without specifying use cases, exclusions, or when a sibling like 'secrets_entropy_scanner' would be more appropriate. This is essentially no usage guidance beyond the inherent capability.

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