unbounded_consumption_auditor__scan_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal that scanning is recursive, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about what a scan produces (inline findings? counts? per-file results?), whether traversal follows symlinks, or how the 5000-file default limit affects coverage. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a significant 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 well-formed sentence with the verb, resource, and target pattern front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a four-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema.

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?

Parameters are fully covered by the schema, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source for return-value behavior and it omits it entirely. An agent knows what the tool scans but not what it gets back or how large a directory is safe to pass.

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 100%, and all four parameters (path, exclude, include, maxFiles) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already says, such as whether include/exclude use substring or glob matching priority.

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 ('Recursively scan'), a precise resource ('directory of LLM/agent application source'), and the exact class of findings ('Unbounded Consumption / denial-of-wallet anti-patterns'). The word 'directory' implicitly separates it from the sibling scan_file/scan_text tools, but it never names them, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 only implied by the resource type: scan a directory vs. a file or a text blob. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over unbounded_consumption_auditor__scan_file or __scan_text, no prerequisites, and no guidance on directory scope or expected run cost.

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