recon_git_secrets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (no mutations), works on local repositories, and returns specific data types (secrets_in_code_history, unique_authors, etc.). However, it doesn't mention performance aspects like rate limits or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on what it searches and returns, ending with operational context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the tool's behavior and return values. It specifies the output structure (secrets_in_code_history, etc.) and operational constraints. However, it could be more complete by detailing error cases or example outputs, slightly reducing completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'repo_path' well-described. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 specific action ('Search git history for secrets') and resource ('git history'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like recon_directory_bruteforce or recon_dns. It explicitly lists what it searches (commit messages, author info, branches, deleted files) and what it returns, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 implies usage for security auditing of git repositories but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like recon_quick or other recon tools. It mentions 'Read-only git operations on local repository,' which provides some context but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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