env_scan_secrets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool scans files, but it does not state whether it reads only, whether it requires an API key for full functionality, what output or report shape to expect, or what file types and directories are covered. This leaves important behavioral aspects hidden.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and target efficiently, earning its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse for an agent to understand the full contract. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether the scan is recursive, whether it modifies files, or how the optional api_key parameter affects behavior. An agent could invoke it with just the directory but would be uncertain about the result format.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'directory' is the scan location and adds the '.env' context, but it does not provide meaningful new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan'), a clear resource ('files'), and a defined goal ('exposed secrets, API keys, and credentials that should be in .env'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like env_rotate_secrets by implying a read-only scanning action rather than rotation, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 intended use case is implied: run this to find secrets that should live in .env. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor references to alternative tools such as env_validate or env_rotate_secrets. The usage context is clear but under-specified.

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