context_oversharing_auditor__scan_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Scan' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't confirm read-only behavior, symlink following, permission needs, or whether the operation is costly at scale — only the schema's maxFiles default of 5000 hints at scale control.

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 purpose and scope are communicated immediately with nothing redundant.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose but not what the scan returns (findings shape, severity, counts) or any behavioral caveats. It's adequate to invoke but thin on expectations setting.

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 all four parameters (path, exclude, include, maxFiles) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so 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 ('recursively scan'), resource ('a directory'), and target domain ('OWASP MCP10 context-oversharing issues'). The directory-vs-file scope implicitly distinguishes it from sibling scan_text/scan_file tools, but no sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied by 'recursively scan a directory', which makes clear this is for tree-wide sweeps vs. single-file scans. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to a specific alternative such as context_oversharing_auditor__scan_file.

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