castov_scan_secrets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description reinforces this with 'locally' and adds the detection taxonomy, but says nothing about return shape or scanning limits.

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?

One front-loaded sentence naming the action, the input forms, and the detection categories with no filler. Efficient, though the parenthetical list is dense.

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 describing results, the description never indicates what the scan returns (matched findings, severity, line references), which is what an agent most needs to plan a follow-up call.

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% for the single 'content' parameter, so the schema fully documents it. The description's enumeration of scannable content types (code, git diff, .env) loosely maps to the parameter but adds no format or syntax 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 gives a specific verb ('Scan') plus the resource ('code snippet, git diff, or .env configuration text') and enumerates the credential classes it detects, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling castov_secret, leaving a plausible overlap unresolved.

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 word 'locally' implies the operating context, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over castov_secret or what inputs are unsuitable. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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