rush_secrets

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly promises that secret values are not exposed and documents the exact skipped status when gitleaks is missing, giving concrete behavioral context.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the core function and then adds the critical failure mode. Every word 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 one-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description covers purpose, the no-exposure guarantee, and a key failure mode. It doesn't need to explain return shape, but broader sibling/usage context is still absent.

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 only parameter is path, and 'Scan for secrets' implies that path is the scan target. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description doesn't clarify whether path should be a file or directory or explain edge-case behavior.

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 and resource: 'Scan for secrets' plus a useful behavioral qualifier, 'without exposing values.' It makes the tool's function clear, though it doesn't explicitly contrast it with siblings like rush_security or rush_token_outline, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over related siblings, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The 'missing gitleaks' note is a behavioral condition, not usage direction.

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