find_sensitive_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description needs to explain side effects and behavioral boundaries. It says only that the tool scans HTML/text; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies browser state, whether it depends on the current page being loaded, or what kind of results are returned.

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 crisp sentence with no filler, no redundancy, and the core action and target are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter scan invoked against the current page, the description provides enough core context to be usable. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explicitly state that it works only on the current page or describe what a successful finding looks like, but the overall simplicity keeps it adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters and its schema is fully covered by an empty properties object, so little parameter documentation is needed. The description adds context about what the tool scans, which satisfies the low semantic burden.

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 clearly states a specific action (scan), the target resource (page HTML and text), and the detection goal (leaked secrets, keys, tokens). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_page, get_text, and security_headers_check.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites are stated, and no comparison is made to other scanning/reading tools. The intended usage is only weakly implied by the verb.

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