elicitation_auditor__scan_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does useful work by naming the six detection categories, which lets the agent anticipate findings, but it says nothing about whether the scan is purely local/read-only, what the findings look like, severity levels, or whether a single call returns all matches.

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: verb and resource first, then the pattern taxonomy. Every clause names a distinct detectable anti-pattern, so nothing is padding, though the run-on list could be split for scanability.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it omits return shape, severity, and routing to the file/directory siblings. It is adequate to understand what the tool hunts for but not complete enough to predict the response.

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 both 'content' and the optional 'label' are already documented in the schema; the description adds no extra meaning such as expected size limits or how 'label' surfaces in findings. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Scan') plus a precise resource ('MCP server source') followed by an enumerated list of the exact anti-patterns detected under the 2026-07-28 spec, which tells the agent far more than the tool name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling scan_file / scan_directory variants of the same auditor, so the agent must infer the text-vs-file split from the name.

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 implied by the enumerated pattern list and the required 'content' parameter, so an agent can infer this is the in-memory variant. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer scan_file or scan_directory, nor any precondition (e.g. content must be source code, not prose).

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