sr_rescan

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that this is a write operation with no data change, no undo, and a dry_run capability. It acknowledges the risk level ('medium') and explains that refresh records no undo because there's no prior state. This is comprehensive for a simple mutation tool.

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 highly efficient: a one-line header with risk and nature, followed by a brief paragraph explaining the write impact, then a compact Args list. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters well. It lacks information about the return value or side effects after a rescan, but this is minor for a metadata refresh 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all three parameters: sr_id (a UUID from sr_list), dry_run (preview mode), and target (optional Xen Orchestra target). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types.

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 identifies the action (rescan) and resource (SR), with a specific verb and context ('metadata refresh — no data change, no undo'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sr_list, sr_get, sr_usage_rca by implying it's a write operation for refreshing metadata.

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 explains when to use this tool (metadata refresh after storage changes) and includes a dry_run option for preview. It notes that it's the lowest-impact write and warns of no undo, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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