memory_poisoning_scanner__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, and it discloses almost nothing beyond 'recursively'. It doesn't say whether the scan is read-only, how expensive a deep tree walk is (the maxFiles default of 5000 hints at cost but is only in the schema), or what a finding looks like. 'Recursively' is the only behavioral addition.

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 verb and scope are immediately clear.

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 4-parameter scanner with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: an agent cannot tell what the scan returns (findings list? severity? file paths?) or how to interpret results. The well-documented schema partially compensates on inputs but not on outputs.

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%, covering path, exclude, include, and maxFiles with defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about path format, globbing behavior, or how include/exclude interact, leaving it at the baseline.

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 (recursively scan), a specific resource (a directory of agent source code), and the target of the scan (memory-poisoning patterns). The 'directory' scope implicitly separates it from scan_text and scan_file siblings, though it never names them.

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 by the word 'directory' – an agent can infer this is the bulk/filesystem variant and that scan_text/scan_file exist for other inputs, but the description never states when to pick this over the sibling scanners or any prerequisites.

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