scan_for_log_leaks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions what it detects (patterns like console.log(process.env.SECRET)) but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what happens after detection, or the format of results. This lack of output/behavior detail is a significant gap for a security-related tool.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the primary purpose, the second gives concrete examples of patterns caught. No filler or redundant information is present, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete in conveying purpose and invocations. However, it lacks any mention of return values or error behavior, which is important for agents to assess results. The examples add value, but the missing output expectations keep it at a middling score.

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 provides 100% coverage of the only parameter, projectPath, with a description ('Absolute path to the project root to scan'). The tool description adds no additional detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('source files') with a clear focus on console.log / logger calls that leak environment variables or secrets. It distinguishes itself from sibling scan_for_secrets by specifically targeting log statements and runtime leaks, not general secret scanning.

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 the tool is used to catch log leaks before production, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over other siblings like scan_for_secrets or provide exclusions. The context is clear enough, but no alternatives are mentioned.

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