trufflehog_scan

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'scan' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify the target, nor does it mention potential network activity, authentication needs, or rate limits. The timeout override hints at possible long-running operations but omits safety details.

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 efficient: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a structured Args and Returns list. Every line provides necessary information without fluff. It is well-organized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 4-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameters, and return values (list of secret findings with detector type, verification status, source location). It could mention edge cases like GitHub authentication or large repository performance, but the existing details are sufficient for most usage scenarios.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the Args section in the description explains all four parameters with meaningful details: target maps to scan modes, scan_type defines the three modes, branch is optional with a default, and timeout overrides the default. This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds practical guidance.

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 opens with 'Scan for leaked secrets and credentials using TruffleHog', which uses a specific verb and resource and clearly distinguishes the tool from other security scanners among siblings (e.g., gitleaks_scan). It also enumerates the scan modes (git, filesystem, github), making its scope explicit.

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 clear context on when to use different target types for each scan_type (e.g., 'target: Git repository URL for git/github mode or local directory path for filesystem mode'). However, it does not name alternatives like gitleaks_scan or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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