a2a_auditor__scan_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Recursively scan' implies a read-only walk, but it never confirms non-destructiveness, whether results are aggregated per file, how large trees are handled (maxFiles is only visible in the schema), or what the scan actually reports.

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?

A single eleven-word sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in usage and behavioral detail.

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?

Inputs are fully specified by the schema and the purpose is unambiguous, so the definition is minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent gets no signal about what a scan returns (findings list, severities, file locations) or how expensive a recursive scan may be.

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 path, exclude, include, and maxFiles are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the notion of recursion, which loosely relates to maxFiles/exclude behavior but gives no extra syntax or default detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+target: 'recursively scan a directory of A2A agent source for protocol anti-patterns'. The word 'directory' implicitly separates it from a2a_auditor__scan_file and a2a_auditor__scan_text, though it never names them. Clear enough for an agent to know what it does, but sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over a2a_auditor__scan_file, a2a_auditor__scan_text, or a2a_auditor__list_patterns, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether the directory must contain agent manifests). Only the word 'directory' hints at the applicable scope.

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