list_scanners

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses discovery methods (mDNS, USB) and platform backends (WIA, SANE), as well as return format (JSON array with specific fields). It does not mention potential side effects or time delays, but for a read-only listing tool, this is sufficient.

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 three sentences with clear front-loading: 'List all scanners reachable from this machine.' Every sentence adds essential information (discovery methods, platform specifics, return fields) without any waste.

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 (multi-platform, network discovery) and existence of an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: discovery methods, platform drivers, return fields (id, name, backend, connection, sources), and a note about passing id to scan_document. It is fully informative for a listing 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?

The input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds value by explaining the output structure and discovery mechanisms, going above the baseline of 3 for high 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 'List all scanners reachable from this machine.' It specifies the resource (scanners) and action (list), and distinguishes from sibling tool scan_document by mentioning the id field is used for scanning.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to discover scanners before scanning) and implicitly guides not to use it for scanning by referencing scan_document. However, it lacks explicit when-not instructions or alternatives beyond the sibling.

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