scan_git_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses detection method (diff hunks), output fields, and respect for .gitleaksignore. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or potential performance implications of scanning large histories.

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 composed of three efficient, front-loaded sentences. It packs a clear purpose, behavioral details, and a concise list of return fields without any 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?

The description gives enough detail for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, inputs, and outputs, including severity and rotation status. It lacks explicit failure modes and usage alternatives, but for a read-only scan tool with a well-described schema, it is mostly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context around 'recent commits' which relates to since_days and last_n_commits but does not explain defaults or how the two parameters interact, adding only marginal value beyond the schema.

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'), specifies the resource ('git commit history of a repository'), and states the exact purpose ('for secrets that were ever committed, even if later deleted'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like scan_for_secrets by emphasizing historical commit detection.

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 sets clear context for when to use the tool (scanning git history for secrets, including deleted ones) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling differentiation is implied through 'even if later deleted' rather than stated directly.

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