toxic_flow_auditor__scan_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that scanning is recursive and covers all registered tools, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, whether it modifies anything, or how long it might take.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity means it omits important parameter and behavioral context.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the single sentence is insufficient. It does not explain the three parameters, what a 'toxic flow' is, or what the scan returns.

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 all three parameters. The description never mentions 'path', 'exclude', or 'maxFiles', so an agent gets no meaning for these parameters beyond the bare schema types.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('scan'), resource ('directory of MCP server source'), and scope ('for toxic flows across all registered tools'). It clearly distinguishes directory-level scanning from the sibling scan_file, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_file, scan_source, or audit_catalog. The recursive-directory scope implies usage, but no conditions or exclusions are stated.

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