prompt_injection_scanner__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 usefully discloses automatic exclusion of node_modules, .git, dist, and binary files — real behavior not in the schema defaults — but says nothing about what a scan returns (findings shape, severity, per-file locations), whether scanning is read-only, or how the automatic skips interact with user-supplied include/exclude.

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, zero filler. The core action and scope lead, and the operational caveat (auto-skipped directories and binaries) follows immediately where an agent will read it.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral and return-value context, and it stops short of describing what a scan produces or how large-result sets are handled. Adequate to invoke correctly given full schema coverage, but not complete for a bulk-scan security tool.

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 all four parameters (path, exclude, include, maxFiles) are already documented with examples and a default. The description adds little beyond implying default exclusions, and it does not clarify precedence when automatic skips conflict with an explicit include.

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 states a specific verb ('recursively scan') and resource ('a directory') plus the detection target ('indirect prompt injection payloads'), so the operation is unambiguous. It doesn't name the sibling tools (scan_file, scan_text) that do the same scan at different granularity, so differentiation is left implicit rather than stated.

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 RAG knowledge base / scraped corpus examples give a clear sense of appropriate use, and 'recursively' plus the auto-skip list imply it is for bulk corpora rather than single files. There is no explicit exclusion or pointer to scan_file/scan_text for single inputs, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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