scan_site_for_exposed_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no credentials/database are needed, that finding a key is a critical leak bypassing all RLS, and that the full key is never printed. It stops short of stating side-effect-free/read-only behavior explicitly, but 'Needs only the public URL' strongly implies it.

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?

Front-loads the core action and target, then layers in requirements, impact, and usage timing. Every sentence adds information, though the impact explanation is slightly elaborate for a definition concerned with invocation.

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 scan tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, requirements, impact, and output behavior ('never prints the full key'). Return-format details are only partially covered, but the schema's max_scripts note and the key-printing caveat largely fill the gap.

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%, so site_url and max_scripts are already documented (baseline 3). The description adds value by clarifying that the required input is just the public URL with no credentials or database, reinforcing the parameter's nature beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb (scan), resource (deployed website's HTML and JavaScript bundles), and target (exposed Supabase service_role key/JWT/sb_secret_ key). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling audit_supabase_rls, which audits database policy rather than frontend bundle leakage.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance: 'right after deploying a Supabase app' or 'whenever an AI-generated app might have bundled a secret into the frontend.' It provides clear context for when to reach for it but does not explicitly contrast with or exclude the sibling tool.

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