scan_path

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'using quantakrypto' as the scanning engine and indicates a read-only operation by 'Returns a readiness summary and findings'. However, it does not disclose permissions, limitations, or side effects.

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 well-structured sentences with no extraneous information. Every word adds value: action, resource, target, tool, output.

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?

The description explains the output as 'readiness summary and findings' with format options (summary/json), but lacks detail on the structure of the ScanResult object. Given no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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%, both 'path' and 'format' parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting baseline expectations.

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 action 'Scan', the resource 'file or directory', the specific cryptography type 'classical (quantum-vulnerable) asymmetric cryptography', and the output 'readiness summary and findings'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'probe_endpoint' or 'inventory_crypto'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'probe_endpoint' for network endpoints or 'inventory_crypto' for broader inventory. The description lacks explicit usage scenarios or exclusions.

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