secrets_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not explain output format, whether results include matched secret types, any limitations, or the significance of 'PRO - 3 free trials.' The billing note hints at usage restrictions but does not clarify behavior, leaving important operational details undisclosed.

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, concise sentence that immediately front-loads the action ('Scan text') and the object (leaked secrets). It catalogs relevant secret types efficiently. The '[PRO - 3 free trials]' suffix is a minor aside about plan limitations but does not detract from readability or function.

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 output schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation but leaves out return-value expectations and behavioral constraints such as trial limits or result structure. The simplicity of the tool lowers the burden, but the absence of any output/usage notes means an agent cannot fully anticipate the response or potential plan restrictions.

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 input parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description adds context about what kinds of secrets are detected, which enriches the parameter's meaning slightly. However, it does not provide additional format, length, or encoding details beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: text, for leaked secrets including API keys, tokens, passwords, and connection strings. This distinguishes it clearly from all sibling tools like regex, cron, or base64, which serve different purposes. The action is unambiguous and immediately tells an agent what the tool does.

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 usage: scan text to detect secrets. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the narrow purpose strongly signals its intended scenario. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, so guidance is minimal but reasonably clear.

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