scan_rag_source

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

The description implies a non-destructive scanning operation but does not explicitly state that documents are not modified, nor does it disclose side effects, output behavior, or failure modes. With no annotations present, the description carries the full transparency burden and only partially meets it.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the tool's purpose, target, and timing without unnecessary detail. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly. However, it does not describe what the scan returns or how results are reported (e.g., findings list, exit code), which would be helpful for agents interpreting the outcome.

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 path parameter is described as accepting a supported source document or directory and having a default of the current directory. This adds useful context beyond the raw schema, though the term 'supported' is vague and could leave file-type or format ambiguity.

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 local RAG source documents specifically for prompt injection, secrets, and PII before indexing. This differentiates it from sibling tools like scan_prompt_for_injection, which targets prompts, and check_mcp_policy, which targets policies.

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 'before indexing' gives a concrete usage condition, indicating when this scan should be performed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or explain when to choose this over scan_prompt_for_injection or scan_skill_trust, so some inference is still required.

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