scan_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that paths must be relative to the workspace root and that escaping paths are refused, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor describe the output or error behavior beyond path rejection.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a critical constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple single-file scan tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the key path constraint. It could additionally mention typical output format or error cases, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema only lists 'path' as a string, but the description enriches it by specifying it must be relative to the workspace root and that escaping paths are refused. This gives the parameter meaning beyond the raw schema, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool scans a single source file for leaked secrets and insecure patterns. The verb 'scan' and specific resource 'single source file' make the purpose distinct, especially against the sibling scan_code.

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 description implies usage for scanning a specific file, but does not explicitly compare to scan_code or state when to prefer one over the other. There are no exclusions beyond the path constraint, which is more a security limitation than a usage guideline.

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