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 behavioral burden. It never states that the operation is read-only, what the scan produces (findings, severities, counts), whether it needs file access permissions, or how large files are handled. Only the target domain is disclosed.

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 that states the action and scope with zero redundant phrasing. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place to learn what a scan returns, but it stops at the purpose. For a one-parameter scanning tool the gap is modest, yet an agent still cannot anticipate the result shape or any constraints before calling it.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that 'path' is an absolute or relative file path. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 names a specific verb (Scan), the resource scope (a single file), and the domain (A2A Agent2Agent protocol anti-patterns). Combined with the name, an agent can distinguish it from scan_directory and scan_text by input granularity, but it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

'Scan a single file' implies the usage condition (you have one file rather than a directory or raw text), which is adequate routing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools the agent should prefer for other input shapes.

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