mcp_server_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 behavioral burden, yet it reveals almost nothing: no read-only assurance, no indication of what is reported, whether findings are persisted, or any performance/rate considerations. 'Scan' implies a non-mutating read but this is inferred, not stated.

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 with no filler; the action, scope, and target domain all appear before any dependent clause. Nothing to trim.

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 should say more about what the scan produces and which pattern families it covers (a sibling list_patterns implies a pattern catalog exists). Adequate to invoke, but an agent cannot predict the shape or breadth of results.

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 the single 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, size, or file-type constraints beyond what the schema already says; 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?

States a specific verb ('Scan') on a specific resource ('a single file') restricted to 'insecure MCP server/tool-definition patterns'. The 'single file' scope implicitly separates it from sibling scan_directory and scan_text, though no sibling is named.

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 word 'single file' implies when this tool applies versus scan_directory or scan_text, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling mcp_config_auditor__scan_file that overlaps in surface domain.

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