memory_poisoning_scanner__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. 'Scan' implies a non-destructive read and names the detection categories, but it says nothing about the output shape, whether the file is modified, error behavior on unreadable paths, or any limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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 tight sentence with the action, scope, and detection target front-loaded. No filler and nothing that does not earn its place.

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 simple one-parameter scanner this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at what a scan produces (findings format, severity, etc.) and confirm the read-only nature. It leaves those to inference.

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% and the single path parameter is already documented in the schema as 'Absolute or relative path to the file to scan'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (Scan), a specific resource (a single file), and the exact detection domain (memory-write and memory-readback poisoning patterns). The 'single file' scope implicitly differentiates it from the sibling scan_text and scan_directory tools, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 'single file' phrasing implies when to use this over scan_text or scan_directory, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Usage is inferable from the family naming convention rather than stated.

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