list_secret_scanning_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description discloses an important authentication requirement (security_events PAT scope) and links to official docs. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, return format, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 a single sentence with the core purpose, followed by a scope note and docs link. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no 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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description carries responsibility for explaining what the tool returns. It provides the purpose and auth requirement but doesn't describe response contents or pagination details, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 71%, and most parameters have descriptions already. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it doesn't enhance understanding of pagination or filter parameters.

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 the tool lists secret-scanning alerts for a repository, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_code_scanning_alerts and list_dependabot_alerts by explicitly naming 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 provides context on when to use the tool (for secret-scanning alerts) and mentions the required PAT scope, helping an agent decide eligibility. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the purpose is self-explanatory.

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