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 burden. It does useful behavioral work by enumerating the five anti-pattern categories that constitute a finding, but says nothing about severity levels, finding output shape, or limits, which matters for a scanner with no output schema.

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 whose colon-delimited list consists entirely of distinct, load-bearing pattern descriptions rather than filler. Slightly dense, but every clause maps to a real detection category.

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 scanner with an empty annotation set and no output schema, the description covers the detection scope adequately but leaves the return contract unspecified — an agent cannot tell what a finding looks like or how 'label' surfaces in results. That is a meaningful gap given the absence of structured coverage.

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 both parameters ('label', 'content') are documented in the schema itself, so the description need not restate them. It adds no extra syntax or format guidance for either parameter, 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 and resource ('Scan MCP server source') and enumerates the exact elicitation anti-pattern classes it detects, which clearly sets it apart from other auditors' scan_text tools. It does not, however, distinguish itself from its own siblings scan_file/scan_directory beyond the word 'text' in the name and the 'content' parameter.

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?

The description establishes the domain context (elicitation anti-patterns from the 2026-07-28 spec) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and never mentions the sibling alternatives scan_file, scan_directory, or list_patterns. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the requirement for a 'content' string.

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