arvan_security_scan_secrets

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds minimal value beyond confirming it's a read operation. It mentions the underlying engine (gitleaks) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy. Very concise, though could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., separating purpose from input hints).

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 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and a scanning context, the description is minimal. It does not cover return format, error cases, or any side effects (beyond annotations). Incomplete for confident 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?

Parameters have 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'directory/files' but does not explain how the two parameters relate, their allowed formats, or when to use each. This does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Scan'), a clear resource ('directory/files for committed secrets'), and names the tool ('gitleaks'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like arvan_security_scan_vulnerabilities or arvan_security_scan_image.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling security scan tools, there's no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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