oauth_auditor__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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that scanning is recursive, but it does not say whether the tool is read-only, what permissions it needs, whether it modifies anything, how results are returned, or how maxFiles affects file traversal.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action, scope, and target domain immediately.

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 four-parameter scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. The schema fully covers parameters, but the description does not explain the return shape or findings format, which an agent would need to interpret results correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents path, include, exclude, and maxFiles thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides; the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description gives a specific verb (recursively scan), a specific resource (a directory of MCP server source), and a specific target problem class (OAuth/token-handling anti-patterns). This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling OAuth scanner tools that scan text or individual files.

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 strongly implied by 'Recursively scan a directory of MCP server source,' which tells the agent the intended input type and context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of oauth_auditor__scan_file or oauth_auditor__scan_text, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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