toxic_flow_auditor__scan_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool scans and audits for toxic flows but does not clarify what 'toxic flows' means, what the output looks like, whether the operation is purely read-only, or any limits/rate behavior; this leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes specific information about file types, target patterns, and audit purpose.

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 two-parameter scan tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough to know what input to provide, but it omits what the scan returns, what constitutes a 'toxic flow', and how it relates to sibling scan_file/scan_directory tools. It is minimally adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for 'content' by specifying TypeScript/JavaScript MCP server source and the registration patterns to look for, but it never mentions the 'label' parameter, so the undocumented parameter remains unexplained.

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 names a specific verb (scan), resource (TypeScript/JavaScript MCP server source), and exact registration patterns (.registerTool(...) and .tool(...)) it targets. It also states the audit goal (toxic flows), which distinguishes it from generic scanners and from sibling scan_file/scan_directory tools that operate on paths rather than raw source content.

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?

Usage is implied by the content parameter and the phrase 'scan ... source', suggesting this tool is for raw source snippets rather than files or directories. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus toxic_flow_auditor__scan_file, scan_directory, or other scanner siblings, and it provides no exclusions or prerequisites.

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