toxic_flow_auditor__scan_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state what the output contains (findings? a report?), whether it is read-only, or what 'toxic flows' means (composed of what conditions). For an auditor tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, this is a significant disclosure gap.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the scan target and scan purpose. It could benefit from one more sentence on usage or output, but as written there is no wasted text.

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 scanner tool with no annotations, no output schema, and half its parameters undocumented, the description omits critical information: the return format, the distinction from sibling scan_file/scan_directory tools, and the semantics of 'label'. It is not sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without further inference.

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 50% – 'content' is documented as 'Source code to scan' but the 'label' parameter has no description in either schema or description. The description confirms the content is TS/JS MCP server source, adding some meaning, but does not explain what 'label' should be set to.

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 and audit), a specific resource (TypeScript/JavaScript MCP server source), and what it looks for (.tool(...) registrations and toxic flows). This distinguishes it from siblings like toxic_flow_auditor__scan_file and toxic_flow_auditor__scan_directory.

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 use this versus toxic_flow_auditor__scan_file, scan_directory, or audit_catalog. An agent must infer from the name that this is for raw source strings, not file paths, which is a critical distinction given the sibling set.

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