find_hardcoded_secrets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the detection is 'heuristic' and lists what types of secrets are covered, which adds some value. However, it does not mention false positives, limitations, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects—leaving notable gaps.

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, concise line that effectively conveys the essence of the tool. It is front-loaded with the core topic and includes specific examples without any filler or redundant content.

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 that this is a security scanner with no output schema and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It lacks usage guidance, limitations, and behavioral context, leaving the agent without enough information to confidently select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the 'name' parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it does not go beyond the structured information. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as detecting hardcoded secrets and lists specific categories (keys, passwords, tokens, URLs with credentials, private keys, AWS keys). Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'finds' or 'scans', the tool name and the enumerative definition make the purpose clear and distinguish it from sibling security scanners.

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 vs alternatives. No mention of suitable contexts, exclusions, or competing tools. The intended use is only implied by the description, providing no explicit decision support for an agent.

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