toxic_flow_auditor__scan_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing about what a 'toxic flow' detection entails, whether the operation is read-only, what depth of analysis is performed, or whether results are returned inline or aggregated. For a security-audit tool the agent cannot predict outcome shape or cost.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain results and behavior but does not. Nothing explains the 'toxic flow' concept, its relation to explain_trifecta, or what a caller receives back.

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% – the single 'path' parameter is a bare string with no format, absolute-vs-relative, or file-type guidance. The description only weakly implies a file path via 'single source file' and adds no semantics the schema lacks.

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 the verb ('scan') and the resource ('single source file') plus the target concept ('toxic flows'), and 'single' implies scope limited to one file versus a directory. However, it does not distinguish this from the closely related sibling toxic_flow_auditor__scan_source, leaving an agent unable to choose between them from the description alone.

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 indication of when to use this over scan_source, scan_directory, or explain_trifecta, and no stated preconditions such as whether the file must exist locally or be on an allowed path. The agent must infer usage from the name.

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