Detect exposed secret patterns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond that by disclosing that the analysis happens locally and that output is redacted fingerprints/ranges rather than raw secrets, which matters for handling sensitive data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the scope ('locally') and the output guarantee ('only redacted fingerprints and locations') are both delivered immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining minor gap is which credential families are covered and any stated limits on large inputs, but for a one-parameter local analyzer this is close to complete.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema gives it 0% description coverage (no description on 'content', only min/max length constraints). 'Supplied text' reasonably identifies the parameter's meaning, so the description partially compensates, but adds no format, encoding, or size guidance.

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?

Specific verb (inspect) plus resource (supplied text for credential formats) and a clear statement of output shape (redacted fingerprints and locations). It naturally separates from siblings like sensitive_file_exposure_scan or jwt_security_test, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. 'Supplied text locally' hints at the input domain, but an agent is left to infer on its own whether this or sensitive_file_exposure_scan / jwt_security_test is the right call for a given artifact.

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