mcp_config_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 burden, and it does disclose one genuinely behavioral trait beyond the schema: the tool switches to skill-scanning mode based on the filename (SKILL.md). However, it omits the read-only nature, what the scan produces, and any error/permission behavior.

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, dense sentence with zero filler, and the primary purpose ('Scan one MCP client config file') is front-loaded ahead of the qualifying clause about SKILL.md.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description would ideally explain what the scan returns or detects (e.g., risky MCP config patterns). It fully covers the simple one-argument call signature but leaves the result semantics unstated, making it minimum viable rather than complete.

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 a single documented 'path' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description hints that the path may point either to a config file or to a SKILL.md, but adds no format, extension, or path-resolution detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Scan') and a specific resource ('one MCP client config file'), and further clarifies the alternate target ('a SKILL.md agent skill'). This distinguishes it from scan_directory, which implies scanning many files, but it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (scan_config_text, scan_skill_text).

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: 'one ... file' suggests this is the single-file entry point versus the directory variant, but the description never states when to choose this over mcp_config_auditor__scan_config_text or scan_skill_text, nor any prerequisites. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer selection.

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