scan_for_secrets

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 discloses the return format (file path, line number, severity, masked preview) and detection categories, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the scan is read-only, any permissions required, or limitations like ignored directories, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 compact, two sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded and additional detail on detected patterns and return values. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains what is returned (file path, line number, severity, masked preview). It covers detection scope and examples. Missing some context like hidden files or performance considerations, but overall adequate for a scanner tool of moderate complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, covering both parameters (extensions and projectPath). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Scan' with a clear resource 'project directory' and object 'hardcoded secrets, API keys, tokens, and passwords.' It also differentiates from sibling tools like scan_for_log_leaks by focusing on secrets rather than logs or other scans.

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 when to use (when needing to find secrets in a project directory) but does not explicitly state exclusions or compare with sibling tools. It lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or which alternative to choose for other scanning needs.

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