audit_gap_auditor__scan_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the checks performed (audit trail gaps, logging of raw args, silent catch, missing request ids), but says nothing about whether it is read-only, safe, what the findings format/severity looks like, or that it does not execute the source.

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 dense sentence front-loads the target framework and then lists the concrete gap types. It is efficient with no filler, though the trailing colon-list makes it slightly long.

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 scanner with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs conceptually but omits what a caller gets back (finding structure, severity, counts) and how results differ from the file/directory variants. Adequate but with clear gaps for the agent's decision-making.

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% – both 'label' and 'content' are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. that content should be raw source text, not a path), so the schema does the work and baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb (Scan) plus resource (MCP server source) and enumerates the exact gap classes it detects for OWASP MCP08:2025, which is far more specific than the bare name. It is clearly a text/scanner tool, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling scan_file/scan_directory variants.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'source' – an agent can infer this is for arbitrary code text. There is no explicit statement of when to choose scan_text over scan_file/scan_directory, and no mention of the list_patterns sibling for enumerating the underlying rules.

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