review_secrets_inventory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it does not output secret values, that it returns specific metadata (dates, git tracking, reference count, decommission judgment), and instructs the agent to pass full paths to the user. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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: the first defines scope and output fields, the second states the no-secret-value rule and the user-relay instruction. No filler, information-dense, and front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only inventory tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers scope, output fields, exclusions (no secret values), and user instructions. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It mentions '可选含已纳入的用户级配置目录' (optionally include the already-included user-level config directory), clarifying the effect of include_user_level. It could be more explicit about the parameter name and default, but it does add meaning 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 clearly states it lists secrets, private keys, credentials, and environment variables in the current repository (optionally including user-level config), and enumerates the output fields (full path, file name, line number, variable name, dates, git tracking, ignored status, reference count, decommission judgment). It also explicitly notes it does not output secret values. This is specific and distinct from siblings like review_scan or review_read.

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 its use for secrets inventory and mentions the optional user-level config inclusion, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. It does instruct the agent to relay full paths to the user for verification, which is a usage guideline. Lacks explicit alternative routing but is not misleading.

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