check_secrets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'All matched secrets are redacted in findings,' which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies the input, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the side effects of redaction are. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences long, straight to the point, and front-loaded with the purpose. Every word adds value: 'Dedicated secret and credential detection' sets the context, the list of secret types provides specificity, and the final sentence on redaction adds a critical behavioral note. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core functionality and one behavioral detail (redaction). However, it does not describe the return format ('findings') or error conditions. The tool's complexity is low, but without an output schema, the description should at least hint at what the output looks like. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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%: both parameters ('text' and 'file_path') have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. For example, it does not explain how 'file_path' is used for context or how the 'text' parameter handles large inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 it is a 'Dedicated secret and credential detection' tool that 'scans text' for a comprehensive list of secret types. The verb 'scans' and resource 'text' are specific, and the list of secret formats (AWS keys, GitHub tokens, etc.) clarifies the scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scan_file' or 'scan_input' by being specialized for secrets.

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 this tool should be used for secret detection by labeling it as 'dedicated,' but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., scan_file, scan_code). No guidance is provided on when not to use it or what prerequisites (e.g., no redaction toggle) exist. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparison.

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