elicitation_auditor__scan_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions recursion but does not disclose read-only status, side effects, output format, rate limits, or error behavior for a scanner that may process large directory trees.

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 no redundant clauses. It communicates the core action, scope, and target efficiently.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain return values and behavior. It only states what is scanned, not what findings look like or how results are returned, leaving an important gap for an agent.

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% and all four parameters (path, exclude, include, maxFiles) have clear schema descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 of MCP server source'), scope ('recursively'), and target ('elicitation anti-patterns'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools like scan_file or scan_text, but the directory scope distinguishes it from single-file or text scanners.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over scan_file or scan_text, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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