tool_poisoning_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 behavioral burden. 'Scan' reasonably implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about output (findings list, severity, empty-result behavior) or whether the file is ever modified, leaving most traits undisclosed.

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 with no filler; the scanned resource and the target pattern classes both appear immediately.

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 with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it looks for. Only the shape of the result and the accepted file types are left implicit.

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, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('Absolute or relative path to the file to scan'). The description adds no constraint such as supported file types or whether a directory path is rejected.

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 ('a single file') plus the exact pattern classes it hunts for (tool-poisoning, confused-deputy). The word 'single' implicitly separates it from sibling scan_directory and scan_text in the same family.

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 by the tool name and the word 'single file' – an agent can infer that scan_text is for inline content and scan_directory for whole trees, but the description never says so or states prerequisites (e.g., file must contain tool registration JSON).

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