elicitation_auditor__scan_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden yet says nothing about what an anti-pattern is, whether the operation is read-only, how large a file can be, or whether results are returned inline or summarized. It only restates the obvious 'scan' action.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for the format, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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?

A scanner with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain what findings look like and what pattern set is applied; neither is covered. An agent cannot predict the result shape or how to interpret findings from this definition.

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 fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional semantics such as path resolution behavior, error handling for missing files, or supported file types.

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), a specific resource (a single file) and the domain object (elicitation anti-patterns), so an agent knows exactly what the tool targets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like elicitation_auditor__scan_text or scan_directory beyond the implicit 'single file' scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over elicitation_auditor__scan_text, scan_directory, or list_patterns; the agent must infer that a directory input should route to scan_directory. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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