ai_code_scanner__scan_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't state that this is a read-only operation, what the scan returns (findings, severities, pattern matches), or whether results are structured; 'scan' is the only hint of behavior, which is thin for a security scanner.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is tight, though its brevity pairs with the completeness gap.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description should describe what a scan produces and how to interpret it, but it does none of that. For a scanner tool it leaves the return behavior and result semantics entirely unspecified.

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 only one parameter (path) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it including absolute vs relative semantics. The description adds no further meaning, matching the baseline-3 case 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') and a scoped resource ('a single file'), plus a clear subject domain ('insecure AI/LLM integration patterns'). The 'single file' wording implicitly separates it from scan_directory and scan_text siblings, though it doesn't name them outright.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to siblings like ai_code_scanner__scan_text or scan_directory. Usage is only implied by 'single file'.

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