toxic_flow_auditor__scan_file

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does almost none of it: no statement that this is a read-only operation, no note on whether files are read locally, no size/permission constraints, and no indication of what a 'toxic flow' finding contains. Only the implicit read-only nature of 'scan' is conveyed.

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 short phrase with zero filler and the key scope qualifier ('single source file') front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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 an undocumented required parameter, the description should carry far more weight. It never explains what toxic flows are, what the scan returns, or how it relates to the sibling scan_source/scan_directory tools, leaving an agent short of what it needs.

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 coverage is 0% and the sole parameter 'path' is undocumented in the schema. The description adds partial meaning by implying it must point to a file rather than a directory, but gives no format, absolute-vs-relative, or encoding guidance to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource (a single source file) and domain (toxic flows), which cleanly separates it from toxic_flow_auditor__scan_directory. However it gives no differentiation against its closest sibling toxic_flow_auditor__scan_source, leaving the agent to guess which input form each expects.

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 versus scan_source, scan_directory, or audit_catalog. The 'single file' phrasing implies batch/directory scans go elsewhere, but that inference is never made explicit and no prerequisites 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.