audit_workspace_secrets

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 does disclose that the tool returns a security audit report with a health score, exposed .env files, and recommendations, implying a read-only analysis. However, it never explicitly states that the workspace is not modified, nor does it mention access requirements or scanning limitations.

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 compact and front-loaded. The opening sentence states the tool's purpose, followed by minimal Args and Returns sections. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers the parameter and summarizes the report contents. It loses a point because it does not position itself among five sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer when to choose it over scan_workspace or get_workspace_health.

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 input schema has no property descriptions and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must fully document the single parameter. It does so clearly: 'path: Root directory to audit.' This adds directory-specific meaning beyond the schema's 'Path' title and default value.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Audit workspace for security risks', and details the exact scope: untracked .env files, exposed API keys, and workspace hygiene. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like scan_workspace and get_workspace_health, which have more general or health-focused purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scan_workspace, preview_cleanup, or get_workspace_health. The description says what the tool does but not under which conditions it should be selected, and it provides no exclusions or mention of sibling tools.

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