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 behavioral burden, yet it does not state that the tool is read-only, what permissions the path needs, how symlinks/large trees are handled, or what a result looks like. 'Recursively scan' is the only behavioral detail.

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 (recursive, directory, agent source code, memory-poisoning) carries information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what findings are returned, how to interpret matches, and how it relates to the file/text variants. Too thin for the tool's complexity.

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% (path, exclude, include, maxFiles all documented inline), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior such as substring-match semantics, which is the correct 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 (scan), resource (directory of agent source code), scope (recursive) and target class (memory-poisoning patterns). The 'directory' scope implicitly differentiates it from the sibling memory_poisoning_scanner__scan_file and scan_text tools, 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?

The word 'recursively' hints at directory-level use, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer scan_file or scan_text, and no prerequisites (e.g., readable path, size expectations).

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