audit_gap_auditor__scan_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the detection categories and indirectly that results are surfaced as 'findings', but says nothing about whether the scan is read-only, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or execution cost for a code-analysis tool.

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 a colon-delimited list of detected gaps. It is dense but every clause contributes a distinct detection category, so little is wasted; the list slightly hurts readability but not enough to penalize heavily.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally describe the shape of the returned findings (severity, location, remediation). It thoroughly covers what is detected but leaves the return format unaddressed, which is a gap for a scanner whose output the agent must interpret.

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% for both parameters (label, content), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, giving the standard 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?

States a specific verb (Scan) and resource (MCP server source) and enumerates the exact gap categories it detects (no audit trail, raw args/results logged, audit hard-disabled, silent catch blocks, missing session/request id). However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling scan_file/scan_directory variants, leaving the input-form distinction to be inferred from the name and schema.

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 scope implies usage (scanning source for audit/telemetry gaps), but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance and no mention of the alternative scan_file/scan_directory tools or when one should be preferred over another. Usage is inferable from the description but never stated.

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