unbounded_consumption_auditor__scan_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the scan target. It does not state that the operation is read-only/non-destructive, what a scan returns, or whether it has side effects, all of which an agent would want for a zero-annotation 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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and the target domain immediately. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter scan tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers what is scanned but omits how to choose it over scan_text/scan_directory and gives no behavioral or output context. Adequate but with visible gaps given the absence of structured metadata.

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?

The single 'path' parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Absolute or relative path to the file to scan'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no path-format or constraint detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 file) and names the exact target class: Unbounded Consumption / denial-of-wallet anti-patterns. This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling scan_text and scan_directory tools, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'single file' implies when this applies (one file on disk) versus scan_text or scan_directory, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no stated exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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