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 behavioral burden. It discloses only that the scan is recursive; it says nothing about read-only/non-destructive nature, permissions, output or findings format, or limits beyond what the schema implies. 'Scan' weakly implies a read operation but this is not stated.

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 wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool has four parameters and no annotations to lean on.

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 moderately complex scanner with four params and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It does not explain how it relates to its scan_file/scan_text/list_patterns siblings or what a caller should expect back, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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%, with path, exclude, include, and maxFiles all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for any parameter.

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 (a directory of MCP server source), and the target of interest (OAuth/token-handling anti-patterns). The word 'directory' distinguishes it from the sibling scan_file and scan_text tools, though it never names those alternatives 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 description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not name scan_file or scan_text as the alternatives for single-file or raw-text inputs. The only hint is the word 'directory', leaving the agent to infer the selection rule.

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