Scan File

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether scanning is synchronous or enqueues a job (siblings get_job/list_jobs strongly suggest async), what permissions are needed, or what happens by default. The only behavioral detail offered is the accepted file formats.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, so it is not verbose. The problem is under-specification rather than excess, leaving it too thin for a four-parameter tool.

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 described. But with no annotations, four undocumented parameters, and a job-oriented sibling set implying asynchronous execution, the description falls well short of what an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. 'CSV or TXT' gives a hint about the path argument, but wait, timeout_s, and especially include_suspected (a non-obvious output-affecting flag) are left entirely unexplained.

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 verb 'scan' and resource 'a CSV or TXT domain list' are stated, and the accepted file formats narrow the input. However, it never explains what a 'scan' produces or how it differs from the sibling scan_domains, so an agent cannot confidently choose between them from the description alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the obvious alternative scan_domains. An agent must infer from the name alone that this handles file-based input while scan_domains likely takes inline domains.

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