tool_poisoning_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 behavioral burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether the target file is modified, what permissions are needed, or what the scan output looks like. Only the detection scope is disclosed.

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 compact sentence with the action and detection scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but nothing needs trimming.

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 one well-documented required parameter and no output schema, the core invocation is covered. However, a scanner whose whole value is its findings gives no indication of result shape, and with no annotations the behavioral profile is left entirely unspecified.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already documents 'path' as an absolute or relative file path. The description adds no format, encoding, or size guidance beyond confirming the target is a single file, so 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) plus a scoped resource (a single file) and names the exact class of patterns detected: tool-poisoning and confused-deputy in MCP tool registrations. The 'single file' framing implicitly separates it from the sibling scan_text and scan_directory, though it never names them.

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' qualifier implies when to use this over scan_text/scan_directory, but there is no explicit statement of when this tool is appropriate versus its siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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