mcp_config_auditor__scan_directory

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 usefully discloses that no MCP server is started and that skill-name comparison happens at directory scope, but says nothing about recursion depth, write side effects, or behavior on zero matches — gaps that matter for a filesystem walker.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the concrete artifact list, and the negative constraint is cleanly separated at the end. Slight dead weight in the fragment 'A directory scan also compares skill names,' which could be folded into the main sentence.

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 must cover both behavior and results. It explains what is scanned and audited but not what the audit returns or how findings are shaped, leaving an agent to discover the response by calling it.

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% with all three parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about path, exclude strings, or the maxFiles cap, so 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?

Specific verb+resource: it names the exact file names it looks for (mcp.json, claude_desktop_config.json, SKILL.md) and says it audits each one, which implicitly separates it from sibling mcp_config_auditor__scan_file and scan_config_text. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 implies usage ('under a directory', 'a directory scan also compares skill names') but never states when to pick this over scan_file or scan_inventory. The only explicit guidance is a negative boundary: 'Does not start any MCP server.'

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