Scan Local File

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explicitly states that raw values are not returned, which is key. However, it does not mention if the file is modified, permissions needed, or any side effects. The 'local handles' concept is introduced but not explained.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded. It uses two short sentences with no redundant information, efficiently conveying the core purpose and a key constraint.

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?

Given two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and a behavioral constraint. However, it fails to explain the 'local handles' concept or how the output relates to other tools like sgw_describe_handle, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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. The description implies 'path' is the file location, but 'persist' is not explained. It adds some context for the path but not enough for the optional boolean parameter.

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 a local file' for secrets) and the output ('tokenized text plus local handles'). It distinguishes from sibling sgw_scan_text by focusing on files, implying a specific use case.

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 implies use when scanning local files, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sgw_scan_text or other siblings. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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