list_secret_scanning_alerts

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

Given no annotations, the description covers prerequisites and state filtering, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no alerts are found. The output schema may supplement return value details, but behavioral traits like potential delays or errors are not addressed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 listing tool, the description covers purpose, scope, state, and requirements. With an output schema available, it is largely complete. Minor omissions like pagination handling are acceptable for this complexity level.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that repo is optional for org-level listing, state can be open or resolved, and owner is required. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 lists secret-scanning alerts, distinguishing between repo-level and org-level by omitting the repo parameter. This sets it apart from sibling tools like list_code_scanning_alerts or list_dependabot_alerts.

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 provides context for use: it lists alerts for a repo or org, with state filter options (open/resolved), and mentions prerequisites (GHAS enabled, token access). However, it does not explicitly exclude other tools or provide alternative suggestions.

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