oauth_auditor__scan_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the detection set in useful detail, which is real value, but says nothing about how the scan behaves: severity/confidence of findings, whether it is a static pattern match versus semantic analysis, content size limits, or what the (undeclared) result looks like.

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 gives the purpose first and then the detection taxonomy, with a short parenthetical gloss only where the term 'token passthrough' would otherwise be opaque. No filler or restated title.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally indicate the shape and meaning of results (findings, severities, locations) and any input-size constraints. The detection coverage is thorough, but the return contract is entirely absent.

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% ('The code content to scan', 'Optional label shown in findings'), so the schema already explains both parameters. The description clarifies that the input is authorization code rather than arbitrary text, but adds no syntax, format, or size constraints beyond the schema.

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 precise verb (Scan), resource (an MCP server's authorization code), and the exact detection scope (OAuth 2.1 anti-patterns from the MCP spec's Security Considerations). The enumerated pattern classes make the tool's remit unambiguous and largely separate it from generic code scanners in the sibling list.

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 domain scoping ('an MCP server's authorization code') implies when this scanner applies, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing it over oauth_auditor__scan_file, oauth_auditor__scan_directory, or oauth_auditor__list_patterns, and no preconditions or when-not conditions are given.

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