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 full burden. 'Scan' implies a non-mutating read, which is a useful signal, but nothing is said about the return shape, whether it needs auth or a specific Python environment, or how it handles non-matching files or syntax errors.

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 well-formed sentence that leads with the verb and resource and packs the domain scope without filler. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is 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?

For a simple one-argument scanner this is largely adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description leaves the return format and file-handling behavior undocumented. It is sufficient to call correctly but not to anticipate results.

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 exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'path' argument. The description adds no format, scope, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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), resource (a single Python file), and the exact subject matter (excessive-agency paths in LangGraph/CrewAI/AutoGen constructs). The 'single ... file' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the directory/text variants, though it never names 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?

The 'single Python file' phrasing implies the use case and partially separates it from scan_directory/scan_text siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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