guardvibe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses what gets inspected (.env, config files, source code) and mentions the .gitignore coverage check. However, it fails to state whether this is a read-only operation, what the scan returns (findings format/structure), or performance characteristics for large directories.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action ('Scan files and directories...'), followed by specific targets and a unique secondary feature. Every clause earns its place; no redundant or filler text.

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?

Adequate for a 3-parameter tool, but gaps remain given the lack of output schema and annotations. The description omits what the scan returns (e.g., list of findings with severity/locations), how secrets are handled (masked/plaintext), and safety properties, which are important for a security scanning tool.

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%, providing full documentation for path, recursive, and format parameters. The description adds no additional semantic detail about parameter syntax, valid path formats, or the distinction between the output formats beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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?

Clearly states the tool scans for 'leaked secrets, API keys, tokens, and credentials' in files/directories, and specifies target file types (.env, config, source code). Distinguishes from general-purpose siblings like scan_directory via its specific focus on secrets/credentials and the unique mention of .gitignore coverage verification.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like scan_secrets_history (git history), scan_changed_files (diffs), or scan_directory (general security). Does not mention prerequisites, scope limitations, or when recursive scanning is inappropriate.

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