scan_secret_exposure

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

The description explicitly states the tool is read-only and does not modify AWS resources, which is key behavioral information. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks further details such as what constitutes a secret exposure or any performance characteristics.

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, which is concise and to the point. It front-loads the action ('Run ... security scanner') and adds critical information ('Read-only'). However, it could be slightly more structured.

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?

The description lacks information about what the tool returns (no output schema present), and given the many sibling scanners, it does not explain what makes this scanner unique or what type of secrets it detects. Complete guidance for selection and interpretation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'region', and its description already explains its purpose. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the tool runs a Secret Exposure security scanner, emphasizes it is read-only, and does not modify resources. The name and description together uniquely identify its purpose among many sibling scanners.

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 says 'only' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative security scanners like scan_guardduty_findings or scan_inspector_findings. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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