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 burden. It identifies the detection categories, but says nothing about whether the scan is read-only, whether the file is modified or opened exclusively, what the response contains (findings count, severities, matched lines), or any performance/limits on large files.

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 the action, scope, and threat domain; nothing redundant and nothing padding the front.

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 one-parameter scanner the target of detection is stated, but with no output schema and no annotations the agent still cannot tell what a result looks like (clean vs. findings, severity, pattern identifiers) or whether the operation is purely read-only.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('Absolute or relative path to the file to scan'). The description adds no syntax, encoding, or path-handling detail beyond that, 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) and resource (a single file) plus the exact threat class it targets: memory-write and memory-readback poisoning patterns. The 'single file' scope implicitly separates it from the scan_text/scan_directory 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 scope word 'file' — an agent can infer it should call this rather than scan_text or scan_directory when it has a path. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no named alternative.

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