a2a_auditor__scan_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about whether the scan is read-only, what 'anti-patterns' it detects, what the output looks like, or any permissions/limits — for a scanner with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 compact sentence with the core action and scope front-loaded. Efficient, though it is perhaps too terse to be maximally informative.

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 simple one-param scan with no output schema, the essentials are covered by schema and description. However, an agent can't tell what patterns are detected, what findings look like, or how it differs from the sibling list_patterns tool — some gaps remain.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema fully documents it (100% coverage, 'Absolute or relative path to the file to scan'). The description reinforces that it operates on a single file, which aligns with the schema; no further param detail is needed.

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') and resource ('a single file') scoped to A2A protocol anti-patterns. The 'single file' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from scan_text and scan_directory siblings, though it doesn't name them 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?

Usage is only implied: 'single file' suggests the alternative is a directory or text variant, and siblings scan_text/scan_directory/scan_file exist. But the description names no alternative or when-to-use condition explicitly.

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