audit_workspace_secrets

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden; it discloses output contents (health score, detected .env files, leaks, recommendations) and 'audit' implies non-destructive, but it does not explicitly state that no workspace modifications are made or mention permissions/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?

Two compact sentences plus Args/Returns; no redundant or vague filler, and the key details are front-loaded.

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?

Description is self-sufficient for a simple one-param audit call: it covers purpose, parameter role, and return contents; it lacks sibling differentiation and edge-case notes, but nothing essential is missing.

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 only parameter 'path' is clarified as 'Root directory to audit', adding semantic meaning beyond the bare schema type/default, though it doesn't specify path format, traversal, or how default '.' is used.

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?

Purpose states a specific action 'Audit workspace for security risks' and enumerates concrete scan targets (.env files, API keys, hygiene), but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as scan_workspace or get_workspace_health.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool instead of scan_workspace, clean_workspace, or preview_cleanup; no conditions or exclusions are provided.

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