scan_ci_workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral transparency. It explains the two risk categories (log leak and injection), how the risks arise, and what output fields to expect (file, job, step, pattern_found, risk, recommendation). This goes beyond a typical scan tool description.

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 sentences deliver substantial detail: file paths, patterns, risk explanations, and return fields. Every clause provides useful context without redundancy or 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 description is comprehensive for a scanning tool with no output schema, listing both detection patterns and return fields. It does not address edge cases like repositories without CI files or error handling, but given the sibling context and clarity, 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?

The schema covers the single parameter repo_path with a clear description. The tool description itself does not add further parameter details, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage, but it does not exceed the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Scans' and names exact resources: GitHub Actions, CircleCI, and GitLab CI workflow files. It clearly differentiates from siblings by focusing on CI workflows and specific dangerous interpolation patterns, unlike general secret scanning or log leak tools.

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 what it targets (CI workflow files) and what it detects, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like scan_for_secrets or scan_for_log_leaks. The specificity implies usage, but no explicit exclusions or alternative comparisons are given.

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