model_scanner__scan_directory

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses the recursion behavior, the recognized extensions, and the automatic skip list (node_modules, .git, venv), which the schema does not state. It omits what the risk report actually contains and whether any filesystem modification occurs, but for a read-style scanner this is solid disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action; the extension roster is long but earns its place because it defines what the include/exclude path matching applies to. Slightly list-heavy but no filler sentences.

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 directory scanner with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, scope, and implicit exclusions adequately. The remaining gap – what 'supply-chain risks' are reported and in what shape – is minor for a scan tool, though an agent gets no picture of the findings format.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces which paths matter (the extension list, the default skips) but adds no syntax or matching semantics beyond what the schema states for include/exclude.

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 and resource (recursively scan a directory for ML model files) and enumerates the exact extensions it recognizes, so an agent immediately knows the scope. The directory-vs-file distinction from model_scanner__scan_file is unambiguous from the definition itself.

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 implied – scan a directory when you want to sweep for model files and supply-chain risks – but the description never states when to prefer this over model_scanner__scan_file or model_scanner__list_patterns, nor any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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