mcp_server_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 burden. It usefully discloses an automatic behavior (skipping node_modules, .git, dist, binaries), which an agent could not learn from the schema. It leaves unstated whether it is a read-only operation, any resource/time limits, and what the scan emits.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the skip behavior appended as useful detail. No filler; slightly under-developed for the tool's complexity.

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 directory scan with no output schema, the description never indicates what the scan produces (findings, counts, file list) or the result shape. The parameter and skip story is complete, but the return-value gap keeps it at a minimum-viable level.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format nuance for path/include/exclude/maxFiles, so the 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 (recursively scan), clear resource (an MCP server's codebase) and a precise target (insecure tool-definition patterns). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling scan_file, but the directory scope is unambiguous from the name and description.

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 'recursively scan ... codebase' and the auto-skip behavior, which signals this is the whole-project entry point. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over scan_file or list_patterns, so the agent must infer the routing.

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