oauth_auditor__scan_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Scan' reasonably implies a read-only analysis, but the description does not disclose what a scan produces (findings format), whether the file is modified, or performance characteristics. For a low-risk read scan this is acceptable but thin.

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 filler; the resource and domain are stated immediately. It is efficient, though it could carry one more differentiating clause without becoming bloated.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description establishes purpose but does not describe what the scan returns or how findings are surfaced (no output schema exists to offload this). This leaves a modest gap for an agent deciding what to expect.

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?

The single 'path' parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Absolute or relative path to the file to scan'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 single file'), and domain ('OAuth/token-handling anti-patterns'). The 'single file' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from scan_text and scan_directory siblings, though it doesn't 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?

Usage is only implied: the 'single file' scope suggests it is for one file versus a text blob (scan_text) or a tree (scan_directory), but no explicit when-to-use or when-to-avoid guidance is given. The reader must infer routing from the tool name.

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