scan_for_secrets

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

There are no annotations or descriptions of behavior beyond the simple verb 'search.' It does not disclose side effects, return format, limitations (e.g., false positives, scanning methods), or any performance implications. The description is minimal and lacks transparency about what the tool actually does after the search.

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, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 omits any mention of the output or results. Since there is no output schema, the agent has no idea what will be returned (e.g., a list of findings, a summary, error messages). It also doesn't specify any preconditions or edge cases, leaving the tool's overall behavior incomplete from an agent's perspective.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema. 'path' is explained as 'Repository or directory to scan' and 'max_file_size_mb' as 'Skip files larger than this (default 5 MB).' These descriptions provide clear meaning and default values, giving complete semantic 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 action (search) and the specific resource (repository) as well as the specific goal (finding hardcoded secrets, high-entropy tokens, credential leaks). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (audit_dependencies, check_licenses, find_dead_code) by focusing on secret scanning.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on contextual triggers, such as 'use this when you need to check for exposed credentials' or when not to use it. The distinction from siblings is implicit but not spelled out.

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