elicitation_auditor__scan_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden: it conveys that scanning is recursive and confined to a directory tree, which is useful scoping context. It does not disclose whether files are merely read (static analysis) versus executed, whether results are truncated at maxFiles, or how findings are aggregated, which matters 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler. Nothing to trim and no delay before the essential information.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the 'what' but not the 'what to expect': no mention of the result shape, per-file versus aggregated findings, or behavior on large trees. Adequate to invoke, but not to set expectations.

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, include/exclude filters, and the maxFiles default of 5000 are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, matching semantics, or interaction details (e.g. how include and exclude combine), 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?

Specific verb+resource ('recursively scan a directory') scoped to 'MCP server source' and a named class of findings ('elicitation anti-patterns'), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling scan_file/scan_text variants of the same auditor.

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 word 'directory': an agent can infer this is the bulk/batch variant versus elicitation_auditor__scan_file and scan_text, but the description never states when to pick one over the other. No prerequisites (e.g. that the directory must contain server source) are given.

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