toxic_flow_auditor__scan_directory

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never says whether the scan is read-only, how large a directory it will traverse, whether it follows symlinks, or what "across all registered tools" actually means — that phrase is ambiguous and could refer to tools declared in the source or tools registered with the auditor.

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. It is efficient, though the trailing clause "across all registered tools" adds ambiguity rather than 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero-documented parameters, the description needed to do much more: explain the ambiguity around "registered tools", describe filtering/limits, and give a sense of the returned findings. As written an agent can attempt a call but cannot predict cost or output.

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 0% for three parameters. The description only hints at the required `path` via the word "directory"; `exclude` and `maxFiles` are never mentioned, so their format and effect (glob patterns? file count cap?) must be guessed entirely.

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 and scope ("Recursively scan a directory of MCP server source") plus the target finding ("toxic flows across all registered tools"). The word "directory" implicitly separates it from toxic_flow_auditor__scan_file, but the other siblings (scan_source, audit_catalog) are never addressed, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this over toxic_flow_auditor__scan_source, scan_file, or audit_catalog, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is the implied 'point it at a directory', which an agent must infer from the verb.

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