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 disclosure burden. It names the exact anti-pattern classes checked, including SSRF via client-supplied webhook URLs, missing authentication, and literal credentials in public Agent Card metadata. It does not describe return format or whether scanning is purely local/read-only, but the operation is clearly an analysis scan.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. Every part, including the named anti-patterns and the note that Agent Card metadata is public, supports the scan's purpose.

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 two-parameter text scanner with full schema coverage, the description provides enough context to understand what to submit and what will be checked. It lacks explicit information about the shape of findings, but no output schema exists and the tool's scope is otherwise clear.

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%, and both parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for content or label, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: scan A2A protocol implementation code. It also enumerates three concrete anti-patterns, making the tool's focus clear. It does not explicitly distinguish scan_text from sibling a2a_auditor__scan_file or scan_directory, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 use on A2A implementation code when checking for specific security anti-patterns. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus scanning a file, directory, or listing patterns. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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