audit_gap_auditor__scan_directory

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses recursive traversal and the audit target, which is useful, but does not explicitly state that the scan is read-only, whether it modifies anything, or what constraints apply beyond the schema-level maxFiles option.

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 filler. It states the traversal mode, target resource, and audit category efficiently.

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 four-parameter scanner with complete schema descriptions, the definition is adequate to invoke the tool correctly. However, it lacks usage alternatives and any sense of output or behavioral constraints, leaving it minimally complete.

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 fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Recursively scan a directory of MCP server source', and names the target issue category 'OWASP MCP08 audit/telemetry gaps'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from scan_file/scan_text siblings by specifying a directory scan, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 scope implies when to use this tool rather than file- or text-level scanners, but there is no explicit guidance such as when to prefer scan_file or scan_text. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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