scan_secrets

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

With no annotations, the description does the disclosure work and does characterize behavior: recursive scanning, curated high-precision matching, non-exhaustive coverage, and unsuitability for critical use. However, it does not mention side effects such as the workspace being auto-created or how results are delivered, which leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with a valuable precision/caveat. No filler or repetition; every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool's purpose, scope, and limitations are clear, and all parameters are documented in the schema. However, with no output schema and no annotation safety profile, the description leaves the return format and workspace side effects implicit, so the agent does not fully know what to expect after invocation.

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 schema already documents dirPath, workspace, extensions, and maxResults. The description adds useful context about what kinds of secrets are detected and that scans target decompiled output, but it does not add parameter-level semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific action and scope: recursively scan a directory for likely hardcoded secrets, and it enumerates concrete secret categories (AWS/Google API keys, private key headers, Slack/GitHub tokens, JWTs). This clearly differentiates it from general code-search or file-listing siblings like search_code and list_files.

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 states the intended context (scanning jadx/apktool output), explicitly positions it as a high-precision starting set, and gives an explicit when-not: not a replacement for a maintained secret-scanner on anything that actually matters. This is actionable guidance for choosing it over more thorough alternatives.

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