context_oversharing_auditor__scan_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses only that traversal is recursive. It never states the operation is read-only/non-destructive, says nothing about permissions needed, and does not mention that scanning is bounded by maxFiles — all relevant for a recursive filesystem walk.

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 tight sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is precisely what leaves the behavioral gaps noted elsewhere.

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 4-parameter recursive scan with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose but omits safety profile, side effects, and any hint of what findings are produced. Adequate to invoke, incomplete to invoke confidently.

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 (including the 5000 default). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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 specific verb (scan), resource (directory), traversal mode (recursively), and target domain (OWASP MCP10 context-oversharing issues). This implicitly separates it from scan_file/scan_text siblings, but it never names or contrasts those alternatives 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 description gives no when-to-use context, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The agent must infer from the word 'directory' that this is the folder-level variant of scan_file/scan_text — pure inference, not guidance.

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