scan_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts — the file is never executed, output is a compact report, and a deterministic scan_id is produced for chaining. It omits cost/size limits, failure modes, and does not discuss the optional VirusTotal network call despite openWorldHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler: the scan action first, the safety guarantee second, the return contract last. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 output schema, the description correctly supplies the return contract (compact report plus deterministic scan_id) and the no-execution guarantee. It falls slightly short on what to do with scan_id, error behavior for unsupported or locked files, and the network implications of the virustotal option.

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%, so the schema already explains path, zip password, and virustotal. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond noting zip among the file types, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (statically scan a file on disk) and enumerates covered file types (zip, exe, dll, script), so it is clearly the on-disk counterpart to scan_github. It never names that sibling explicitly, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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: 'for follow-up tools' hints at get_report_section/search_strings, and 'file on disk' implies the split with scan_github. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over scan_github or what happens when a file type isn't supported.

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