scan_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains basic behavior (scans directory, filters by file types, recursive option) but lacks details like error handling, return format, or whether it only scans for certain media types. Output schema exists but is not described.

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 lead sentence followed by a succinct Args list. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, though the Args section could be slightly more integrated.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the scanning functionality. It explains the key parameters and purpose, but could mention that it returns a list of file paths or similar output details.

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 0% description coverage, but the tool description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: directory (absolute path), file_types (optional filter), recursive (defaults to true). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema 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 directories for media files using Resolve's Media Storage, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on timeline, clips, and rendering operations.

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 scanning directories but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like import_media or import_camera_roll. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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