list_secrets_in_build_log

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

Discloses that the API returns masked secrets (safe to display) and includes specific fields (rule_id, line_number, step_number, dashboard_url). With no annotations, this provides essential behavioral insight, though it could mention pagination or read-only nature.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by key behavioral and usage details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, response structure, and a mandatory linking instruction. Lacks details on pagination or sorting, but for a list tool with good parameter descriptions, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, and descriptions already explain parameters well. The description adds value by detailing what the response contains, helping the agent understand the output and use parameters effectively.

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 lists detections of secrets in CI build logs, specifying secret types and response fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_detections or list_imposter_commit_detections by focusing on build log 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?

Provides some usage context (secrets in CI build logs) and a mandatory linking instruction, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_detections, 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.