context_oversharing_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 behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the basic action. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it mutates or caches anything, what the findings look like, or how severity is reported for a scanner 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 zero filler; the identifying information (action, scope, detected issue class) arrives immediately.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is the only place to explain what a scan returns (finding format, severity, location) and whether the call is safe, and it covers none of that. It is minimally sufficient for a one-parameter tool but leaves real gaps.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the 'path' semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format detail (e.g., file-vs-directory expectations, extension handling) beyond what structured data already supplies, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (a single file) plus the target domain (OWASP MCP10 context-oversharing issues), so the agent knows exactly what it does. The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling scan_text and scan_directory tools, but it never names 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?

Usage is only implied through 'single file' and the OWASP MCP10 framing; the description never states when to prefer this over context_oversharing_auditor__scan_text or scan_directory. No prerequisites, no exclusion conditions.

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