github_check_secret_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'checks' and 'detects', indicating a read operation, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if patterns are not defined. It is minimal but sufficient for this simple action.

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 extremely concise (two sentences, 16 words total). All information is front-loaded and every word is necessary.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and which security check it maps to. A minor gap is the lack of output format description, but not critical.

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 description coverage is 100% (parameter 'org' is described). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the context.

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 action ('Check') and the resource ('custom secret scanning patterns' for an organization). It also mentions 'Detects SEC-004', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_check_secret_scanning and github_check_secret_scoping.

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 implies this tool is for checking custom patterns, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., github_check_secret_scanning). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite info is given.

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