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 burden. It does not say whether the scan is read-only, whether it reads outside the given path, how long it takes, how large a file can be, or what a finding looks like — all of which matter for an unannotated security scanner.

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; every word carries payload and nothing is redundant.

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: what category of patterns are checked, roughly what the response contains, and how findings relate to mcp_server_auditor__list_patterns. As written, an agent can call it but cannot anticipate results or know its 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?

There is exactly one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Absolute or relative path to the file to scan'), so the schema does the work and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the 'single file' framing, no path or file-type constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('insecure MCP server/tool-definition patterns'), and 'a single file' scopes it against the sibling scan_directory. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'single file' hints at scope but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g. use scan_directory for trees, scan_text for pasted content, list_patterns to see what is detected). The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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