prompt_leak_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 burden. It does disclose two real behavioral traits: the scan recurses into subdirectories, and it is scoped to prompt-log/request-body material. It says nothing about whether files are modified, how findings or truncation are reported, or what happens when maxFiles is reached, which leaves meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

Parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema and recursion is stated, but with no output schema an agent still cannot anticipate the return shape (findings list? counts? per-file grouping?) or how include/exclude and maxFiles interact with results. Adequate but not complete for a scanner the agent must interpret output from.

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%, and all four parameters (path, exclude, include, maxFiles) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb ('Recursively scan') plus resource ('a directory') plus target of detection ('leaked credentials and PII'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from scan_file/scan_text siblings via the directory scope, though it never names them; adding 'use scan_file for a single file' would have pushed this to a 5.

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 through the material it targets ('prompt logs or request-body fixtures'). There is no statement of when to prefer this over prompt_leak_scanner__scan_file or scan_text, no prerequisites, and no exclusions such as binary or ignored file types.

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