Secret Scan

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that no traffic is sent, no validation is performed, and paths outside the workspace are refused. These are important behavioral details that help avoid unintended actions.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant content. Each sentence adds meaningful information about behavior, tooling, or parameter constraints.

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 an output schema present, return-value details are not necessary. The description covers purpose, behavior, and path constraints, but the git_history parameter remains under-specified, leaving a small gap in completeness.

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?

The description explicitly explains the path parameter (workspace-relative, outside paths refused), but git_history is only indirectly implied through the Nosey Parker mention. Schema coverage is 0%, so more direct parameter explanation would improve clarity.

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 files in the engagement workspace for credentials and explicitly distinguishes itself from validation by noting every hit is a candidate until secret_validate is used. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (scanning for credentials) and directs the user to secret_validate for follow-up validation. Also mentions the safety property of sending no traffic, which helps the agent decide appropriate use.

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