scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the allowed-root boundary and does not explain side effects, permissions, whether the operation is read-only, or what scanning entails.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool's security-sensitive scope and lack of annotation coverage.

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 values need not be explained, but the description still misses key behavioral context. With no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, it should say more about what scanning does and any operational constraints beyond the allowed root.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'path' parameter. It adds meaning by saying the path is a config file or directory inside the allowed root, but it omits format details such as absolute vs. relative paths or expected syntax.

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 names a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('config file or directory') and adds a scoping constraint ('inside the server's allowed root'). It is clear enough to distinguish from a generic operation, but it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling 'list_rules' or explain what 'scan' actually produces.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a context (config file or directory) but never states when a caller should choose 'scan' over 'list_rules' or any other sibling.

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