github_check_secret_scanning

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Check' and 'review', implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on side effects, permissions required (e.g., read access to secret scanning), or rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is insufficient.

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 with two short segments: the main action sentence and the detection codes. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the primary action. There is no redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately states the purpose but lacks context on what 'coverage' means, how alerts are presented, and how the detection codes are used. It is minimally complete.

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% with parameters 'owner' and 'repo' described as 'Repository owner' and 'Repository name' respectively. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states the tool checks secret scanning coverage and reviews open alerts, and it mentions specific detection codes (SEC-001, SEC-002). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like github_check_push_protection or github_check_repo_secrets, though the mention of 'secret scanning' is specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, such as repository access or context. Without any usage context, an agent may not know when to invoke this tool over others.

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