kubeguard_scan_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only says 'audit' — not whether the files are sent anywhere, whether the operation is read-only, what the output contains, or how recursion/symlinks are handled. 'Every YAML file' hints at breadth but leaves the operation's effects and return shape undisclosed.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The brevity is appropriate for a single-parameter tool, though it errs toward under-specification rather than density.

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?

For a simple tool this is thin: no output schema exists and the description doesn't say what an 'audit' produces, how results are reported, or what files are skipped. An agent knows roughly what to point at but not what it will get back or how the tool relates to its four siblings.

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 0% — the single 'path' parameter is documented nowhere. The description alludes to a local directory but never names the parameter, states that it defaults to '.', clarifies file-vs-directory acceptance, or mentions recursion depth, so an agent gets no help beyond the schema title.

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 ('audit') and resource (YAML files in a local directory) are stated, and 'under a local directory' implicitly signals recursion. However, 'audit' is vague about what is actually checked (Kubernetes manifests? policy violations?), and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling 'kubeguard_scan', which an agent could easily pick instead.

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 guidance on when to use this versus kubeguard_scan or kubeguard_rules, no prerequisites, and no indication of what happens if the path is a single file or doesn't exist. The only usage signal is the word 'local', which at least rules out remote sources.

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