Scan a local file for risky agent instructions

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses read-only behavior and that it runs entirely locally, which are key safety and operational traits. Does not cover output format but covers the most critical behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. Purpose and key constraints are front-loaded, making it immediately actionable.

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?

With two simple params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does, its input, and safety constraints. Missing explicit mention of return format is minor for a scan 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 covers all parameters with descriptions and enum for kind. Description minimally reinforces the type of file but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 it runs Beam's offline heuristic risk scanner on a local file, specifying types (agent skill/instruction or MCP server config). It effectively distinguishes from beam_scan_content by emphasizing 'file already on disk'.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: scanning files already on disk, with examples of file types. Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the local-file focus and MCP config mention differentiate it well.

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