agent_graph_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 burden. It usefully discloses the analysis domain (orchestration constructs in three agent frameworks), but says nothing about whether the file is only read, what happens on a non-Python or missing file, or what kind of result is returned. For a low-risk read-only scanner this is acceptable but thin.

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; the scope ('single Python file') and the target findings come before the framework qualifier.

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 one-parameter scanner with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what is scanned and what is looked for. The only meaningful gap is how findings are shaped and how this differs operationally from the text/directory variants.

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 one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Absolute or relative path to the .py file to scan'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no additional constraint such as extension enforcement or size limits, so the baseline 3 applies.

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), a specific resource (a single Python file), and the exact class of findings (excessive-agency paths) scoped to named frameworks (LangGraph/CrewAI/AutoGen). The 'single file' framing implicitly separates it from the sibling scan_text, scan_directory, and list_patterns tools.

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 'single Python file' scope implies when to pick this over agent_graph_auditor__scan_text or scan_directory, but no alternative is named and no preconditions (file must exist, must be Python, encoding) are stated. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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