security_auto_sanitize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the two main side effects: replacing secrets and populating .env.example. However, it does not mention whether changes are reversible, how detection is triggered, or what happens to an existing .env.example, which is meaningful for a mutating tool.

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 sentence with no filler. The action, target, and result are all front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-optional-parameter tool, the description plus fully documented schema is enough to invoke it correctly. Still, there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns or confirms, and the mutating behavior lacks safety caveats beyond the dryRun parameter in the schema.

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%, so both dryRun and targetDir are already documented. The description does not add extra meaning for parameters, but the schema alone is sufficient, matching the baseline of 3.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Auto-replaces') with a clear resource ('detected hardcoded secrets') and states the resulting outcome ('process.env references' and '.env.example'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like security_scan_secrets, which scans rather than mutates.

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 when to use the tool: when you want hardcoded secrets replaced with environment references. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as security_scan_secrets, nor does it state when not to use it or whether a prior scan is required.

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