scan_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one genuinely useful trait — that raw values are not returned — plus that extraction warnings are reported. However it is silent on whether source files are modified, what permissions are needed, whether any session state is created (relevant given forget_session exists), and how the warnings surface.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the formats, with the no-raw-values constraint placed prominently. No 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers formats and warning reporting. But with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, the definition leaves the role of rules_path and this tool's place in the scan/mask/restore pipeline unstated.

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% for two parameters: source_path and rules_path. The description clarifies source_path only indirectly via the format list, and never mentions rules_path at all, leaving the purpose and expected content of the rules file entirely undocumented.

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) plus the resource and its accepted formats (local TXT, Markdown, DOCX, text PDF), and adds a distinguishing constraint (no raw values returned). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names or contrasts with the sibling tools mask_file/restore_file.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose scan_file over mask_file or restore_file, nor any stated prerequisite or workflow position (e.g. scan before masking). Usage can only be inferred from the verb.

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