ai_code_scanner__scan_directory

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: recursive traversal and auto-skipping of node_modules, .git, dist, and binary files. The schema does not state these default exclusions, so this is genuine added context, though return format and large-directory behavior remain unstated.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the auto-skip caveat immediately after. No filler or restated name/title.

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 read-only directory scanner with four fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and default exclusions adequately. It could note the output shape (findings list) but the absence of an output schema lowers the bar.

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%, so path, exclude, include, and maxFiles are already documented, including the default of 5000. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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?

Specific verb (scan) + resource (directory) + scope (insecure AI/LLM integration patterns) with recursion noted. This clearly separates it from ai_code_scanner__scan_file and scan_text via the directory/recursive framing, though it never names those siblings 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 directory-scoped, recursive wording implicitly tells an agent when this applies versus scan_file/scan_text, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is inferable from the name and phrasing rather than stated.

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