sast_hardcoded_secrets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It describes scanning scope and regex patterns but omits details on output format, false positives, performance, or side effects. While adequate, it lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It is front-loaded with the action and includes concrete examples, though a more structured format could improve readability.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the scanning capability and examples of secrets. However, it does not explain how results are returned or how to interpret them, leaving some context gaps for the agent.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the parameter 'path' is well-documented in the schema. The description does not add additional context or constraints beyond the schema, meeting the baseline without exceeding it.

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 scans string literals for hardcoded secrets using 20+ regex patterns, listing specific examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sast_code_execution or sast_command_injection by focusing exclusively on secrets detection.

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 use when searching for hardcoded secrets but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like sast_scan_directory. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and sibling differentiation is not addressed in the description.

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