scan_secrets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that scanning uses built-in git_history or gitleaks when installed, and mentions scanning of past commits. However, it does not cover other behavioral aspects like performance impact or permissions required, which would be helpful.

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 three sentences long, each sentence adding specific information without fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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?

Given the tool is a scanner with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, including git history scanning and the use of built-in tools. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it, though it could mention the default severity behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context for include_git_history ('also scans past git commits... recommended before push/PR') and clarifies that the scanner is built-in, adding value beyond the schema definitions.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Detect hardcoded secrets and credentials in a directory.' It also specifies the built-in scanner and distinguishes git history scanning, making the tool's purpose specific and differentiating from siblings like scan_code.

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 gives explicit guidance for include_git_history: 'recommended before push/PR.' It implies when to use the tool for secrets detection, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like scan_code or scan_dependencies, leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.

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