scan_strings

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. It discloses the output categories (URLs, IPs, paths, risky API names) but says nothing about sampling behavior, performance on large files, or whether the scan is read-only — relevant for a tool whose only knob is 'sample_size'.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and the enrichment are both stated immediately.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of truth and it omits output structure, sampling semantics, and safety profile. Too thin for a 2-parameter scan tool with an unexplained default.

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 0% and the description does not mention either parameter. 'path' is loosely inferable as the target file, but 'sample_size' (default 40) is completely unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether it caps strings per category, truncates bytes, or limits output.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Extract printable strings from a file') and adds the classification output. The classification categories implicitly separate it from scan_secrets and full_audit, though it never names those siblings 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?

No statement of when to use this versus scan_secrets, scan_binary_mitigations, or full_audit, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the raw strings pass and secrets scanning is a separate tool.

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