unbounded_consumption_auditor__scan_text

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by spelling out the five concrete detection categories, so an agent knows what will and will not be flagged. However it says nothing about the result shape (findings, severities, locations), whether the scan is purely local/read-only, or any size/time limits on the `content` input.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and target, and delivered as a single sentence. The long pattern enumeration is dense but every item earns its place by defining detection scope; a short lead-in clause signaling the sibling choice would have made it perfect.

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 scanner with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope well but leaves the return contract entirely implicit — an agent cannot tell whether it gets a findings list, counts, or severities, nor how to interpret a clean result.

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% — both `content` and `label` are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics on top (e.g. whether `content` must be a single file or may be a concatenation, or how `label` surfaces in findings beyond the schema's own example).

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 resource (LLM/agent application code) and enumerates the exact anti-pattern classes detected (missing output token limits, no timeouts, unbounded tool/retry loops, disabled framework caps, unrated MCP billable calls). This clearly separates it from unrelated scanners like secret_scanner or prompt_injection_scanner. It does not differentiate itself from its own siblings scan_file and scan_directory, so an agent gets no signal on which surface form this variant takes.

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 tool name suffix (_text) and the required `content` parameter; the description never says to use this when you have an in-memory snippet versus scan_file for a path. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use case, and no pointer to unbounded_consumption_auditor__list_patterns for the pattern catalog.

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