Scan for Secrets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is safe and idempotent. The description adds what types of secrets are searched for but does not disclose other behavioral traits like recursion, binary file handling, or output format. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate value.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently captures the tool's purpose. No fluff or redundant information. Perfectly front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given full schema coverage and informative annotations, the description is largely complete. It lacks details about return values or behavior on no results, but for a scanning tool with no output schema, this is acceptable. Slight gap in not mentioning file filtering or recursion depth.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover all three parameters (path, onlyPhp, projectPath) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema definitions. Baseline of 3 is correct.

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 clearly states the tool scans project source code for hardcoded sensitive values like API keys, private keys, tokens, and passwords. It uses specific verbs ('arar' meaning searches) and a concrete resource (project source code). No other sibling tool focuses on secret scanning, so differentiation is implicit.

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 implies usage for scanning secrets in source code. Sibling tools include other security scanners (scan_sql_injection, scan_xss, etc.), so context is clear but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance. A score of 4 is appropriate for clear context without exclusions.

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