a2a_auditor__scan_text

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 discloses the detection semantics (what it looks for and why - e.g. SSRF, auth bypass, credential leakage in public Agent Cards), which is substantive. However, it says nothing about the output shape, severity levels, read-only nature, or whether it performs any network calls. This is a meaningful gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 dense front-loaded sentence that names the target and enumerates the three pattern categories with parenthetical rationale. No filler, but the long enumerative clause stretches readability.

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 text-scanning tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what will be flagged and why each pattern is dangerous. It lacks return-format detail and expected-input guidance, but is largely complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% - both parameters (label, content) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level semantics (e.g. expected content format, size limits). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

States a specific verb (Scan) and resource (A2A protocol implementation code) and enumerates the exact anti-patterns it detects. Clearly distinguishes itself from sibling scanners (secret_scanner, mcp_server_auditor, etc.) by naming A2A-specific threats like SSRF via push-notification webhooks and literal credentials in publicly-served Agent Cards.

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 by listing what it detects for A2A code, but never says when to prefer scan_text over a2a_auditor__scan_file or scan_directory, nor when A2A scanning is inappropriate. Guidance is inferable from the enumerated patterns but not explicit.

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