scan_secrets

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

Provides some behavioral info: recursive scan and default exclusions (node_modules, .git, dist). But with no annotations, it lacks disclosure on safety (read-only?), output format, permissions needed, or side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences: one for action and scope, one for examples. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 output schema, the description should explain return values or behavior. It omits whether the tool modifies files, reports findings, or any risks. Incomplete for a security scanning tool.

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?

Input schema already describes the single parameter (directory) with detail (recursive, exclusions). Tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states 'scan directory for hardcoded secrets, API keys, passwords, and sensitive data' with specific examples (AWS keys, tokens, credentials). Distinct from sibling 'security_audit' which implies broader audit.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'security_audit'. No context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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