prompt_leak_scanner__scan_file

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 usefully discloses that the file format (plain text vs JSON chat-request-body) is auto-detected, but says nothing about read-only safety, whether the file is modified, or what the findings look 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 that identifies the action, target, and detection scope with zero filler. The parenthetical is compact and informative rather than redundant.

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 scanner with no output schema, the description covers purpose and input handling adequately. It is thin on what the scan returns and offers no alternative-routing guidance, which limits it to the minimum viable level.

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 is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no path syntax or constraint detail beyond it, 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) and resource (single file) and names what it detects (leaked credentials and PII), plus the accepted input formats. The 'single file' scope implicitly separates it from the sibling scan_text and scan_directory tools, though it does not 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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling scan_text, scan_messages, or scan_directory. The format auto-detection note is a behavioral trait rather than a use-case condition, so an agent gets no routing help.

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