scan_directory

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions recursive scanning, filtering, and progress reporting, adding value. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, if it requires network access, or if it could be destructive (e.g., modifying files). The safety profile is not explicit.

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 two sentences covering purpose, features, and output. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, supported features, and return scope. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance implications (e.g., large directories), and return format. The description is adequate but not fully complete for a production tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description summarizes the parameters ('extension filtering, exclude patterns') but does not add new meaning beyond what is in the schema. According to the guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 tool recursively scans a directory for vulnerabilities and secrets. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_file (single file) and scan_diff (diff) by specifying the resource as a directory. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 such as scan_file, scan_files, or scan_diff. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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