audit_gap_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 disclosure burden. It does not say whether the scan is read-only, whether it follows symlinks or reads auxiliary files, what rules are applied, or how findings are reported — all left to inference from the tool name.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves no room for the routing or output context a scanner in this family needs.

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 annotations and no output schema mean the description should explain what an MCP08 audit/telemetry gap is and roughly what comes back. It does not, so an agent can call the tool but cannot anticipate or interpret its findings.

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 a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Absolute or relative path to the file to scan"), so the schema already covers it fully. The description adds no syntax, size-limit, or path-resolution detail beyond that, which is the expected 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?

States a specific verb (scan) plus resource (single file) plus the target concern (OWASP MCP08 audit/telemetry gaps). "Single file" implicitly separates it from the sibling scan_text and scan_directory variants, though it never names them.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. With ~130 siblings including audit_gap_auditor__scan_text and audit_gap_auditor__scan_directory, the agent must infer that this is the file-in/patterns-out entry point from the word "file" alone.

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