scan_secrets

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden and does so excellently. It discloses that detection runs in-process via regex + Luhn, operates offline without an API key, and optionally routes to a backend which persists an audit record – far beyond typical descriptions.

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 concise yet rich, with the core purpose in the first sentence and supporting technical detail in a second paragraph. Every sentence adds value, including the unexpected offline capability, without unnecessary filler.

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 output schema exists, so return values are covered structurally. The description covers purpose, usage context, offline/online behavior, and audit implications, making it complete for a simple two-parameter tool. An agent has enough information to invoke it safely and effectively.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds examples of payload types (prompt, API body, file contents) that map to the 'text' parameter, but does not go beyond the schema for the 'redact' parameter. This is adequate given the schema already documents both parameters.

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 tool's specific purpose: scanning text for secrets and PII and returning a redacted copy. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_skill and network_scan by focusing on data leakage prevention, making its function unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly frames when to use the tool ('BEFORE it leaves for an LLM or external API') and provides context about offline vs. backend-routed scanning. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the use case is clear enough that an agent can select it appropriately.

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