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 disclosure burden. It conveys recursion but says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, expected runtime, file-count limits beyond the schema's maxFiles, or how findings are surfaced.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is lean but arguably too terse for a four-parameter scanner, leaving room that the description could have used productively.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a scan produces and what 'protocol anti-patterns' means. It never addresses return format, result grouping, or relationship to list_patterns, leaving the agent under-informed for a scanning tool.

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 all four parameters (path, exclude, include, maxFiles) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation at full coverage.

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 (scan), resource (directory of A2A agent source), and target (protocol anti-patterns), plus the recursive traversal scope. The 'directory' scope implicitly distinguishes it from a2a_auditor__scan_file and scan_text, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 pick this over a2a_auditor__scan_file, scan_text, or list_patterns. With many near-identical scan_* siblings across auditors, the agent gets no routing help beyond the name's 'directory' hint.

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