prompt_leak_scanner__scan_file

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that input format detection is automatic and that both credentials and PII are sought, but says nothing about read-only semantics, side effects, size limits, or what the returned findings look like (there is no output schema).

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 dense sentence with the action and detection scope front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (format tolerance, auto-detection, credential/PII targets) contributes information.

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 read-only scanner this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say something about the shape of results (findings, severities, counts) or about file-size/encoding limits. That gap matters for an agent deciding whether this tool answers its question.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('Absolute or relative path to the file to scan'). The description adds only the acceptance of either plain text or JSON fixture content, which is a marginal but real addition. 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?

States a specific verb (scan), a specific resource (a single file), and the finding classes (leaked credentials and PII), plus a format detail (plain text or JSON chat-request-body fixture, auto-detected). It implicitly separates itself from scan_directory by scoping to one file, but never names the sibling 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 'single file' scope and auto-detection of input format imply when to use this over scan_directory or scan_text, but the guidance is never made explicit. There is no statement of when-not-to-use or what to do for pasted content or whole trees.

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