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 burden. It says nothing about whether the scan is read-only, whether it executes or resolves the file's contents, what happens on binary/unreadable input, or how results are surfaced. 'Audit/telemetry gaps' hints at what it looks for but discloses no operational behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope qualifier ('single file') precedes the purpose clause. Nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but mostly sufficient on intent. It omits the expected output shape (findings list? pass/fail?) and any coverage caveats about what MCP08 checks are performed, which an agent would need to interpret 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – the single 'path' parameter is already documented as an absolute or relative file path. The description adds nothing about path handling (globs, symlinks, size limits), so baseline 3 applies with the schema doing the heavy lifting.

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'), a precise resource ('a single file'), and a well-defined target domain ('OWASP MCP08 audit/telemetry gaps'). It implicitly separates itself from audit_gap_auditor__scan_directory and scan_text by scoping to one file, 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 word 'single file' implies when this tool applies versus the directory/text variants, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. file must be readable/text-based), and no named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the scope noun alone.

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