scan_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that scanning creates a saved file (via save_dir), returns summary and optional inline images/OCR text, and handles errors when multiple scanners are found. This covers key behaviors adequately.

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 moderately long but well-structured with clear argument explanations. Every sentence adds useful information, though minor condensation could improve readability without losing content.

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?

The description explains the return value (summary plus optional images/OCR text) and covers all parameters, which is sufficient given no output schema. It could mention more about error conditions or prerequisites, but core functionality is well-covered.

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 description provides detailed explanations for all 8 parameters, including default values, allowed options, and usage recommendations. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage, adding significant value beyond parameter titles.

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 the tool scans a document and returns it for Claude to read. It uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('document'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_scanners' which serves a different function.

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 the tool's purpose and references 'list_scanners' for obtaining scanner IDs, implying a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or compare with 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.