elicitation_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. It does not say the scan is read-only/non-mutating, does not describe what findings or severity output looks like, and gives no indication of cost, rate limits, or file-size constraints.

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 short sentence with the target (single file) front-loaded and zero padding. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 one-parameter scanner with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks a description of what the scan returns (findings? pattern matches? severity?) and whether the operation is safe/read-only. The definition is minimally workable but not complete given the structural metadata present.

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 the single 'path' parameter is already documented as 'Absolute or relative path to the file to scan' in the schema. The description adds only the confirmation that the path targets a single file, 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?

Names a specific verb (scan), a specific resource (a single file), and the target domain (elicitation anti-patterns). The word 'single file' implicitly separates it from the sibling scan_text and scan_directory tools, but it never names them 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: an agent can infer this is for when the content already lives on disk rather than in a string. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to scanner vs list_patterns or directory alternatives.

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