sr_rescan

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

The description discloses that it is a write operation with no undo, no data change, and marks risk as medium. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well, though additional context on side effects or permissions would improve it.

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 concise with a clear summary line, a clarifying paragraph, and a structured Args section. No redundant information, every sentence serves a purpose.

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's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it explains the action, effect, parameter meanings, and behavioral traits like no undo. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The Args section adds meaningful explanations for all three parameters beyond the schema's types and defaults. sr_id is described as 'SR uuid (see sr_list)', dry_run as 'preview without rescanning', and target as 'Xen Orchestra target name from config; omit for the default.' This fully compensates for the 0% schema description 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 rescans an SR for metadata refresh with no data change or undo. The verb 'Rescan' and target 'SR' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sr_list or sr_get by emphasizing the write nature and no data change.

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 implies usage for metadata refresh without data change, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are provided, relying on agent inference.

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