scan_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral context. It does disclose that the tool returns 'structured candidate records with grounding anchors (file hash + line count)', which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, requires no side effects, or mention any limitations.

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 sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action and resource, then states the output characteristics. Every part adds value.

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 provides enough top-level information for a single-file scanning tool: input, action, and output type. However, with no output schema and no annotation, it leaves questions about exact return structure, safety implications, and when to choose this over siblings. It is viable but not fully complete for an agent without further context.

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%, so the baseline is 3 as the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only hinting at the output structure, not at parameter behavior or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Scan a single file for vulnerabilities' clearly identifies the input and action. It also describes the output as 'structured candidate records with grounding anchors', which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like analyze_code.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_code or verify_finding. It states what the tool does but not the conditions that should lead an agent to select it. The phrase 'single file' faintly implies scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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