scan_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is SLOW and makes many API calls, and explains that it rebuilds the index and embeddings. It doesn't detail side effects (e.g., does it overwrite the existing index?), but it provides strong behavioral context and performance warnings.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: first states the action, then the performance warning, then precise call conditions, then explicit what-not-to-dos, and finally the alternative tool. It's front-loaded and highly scannable.

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?

Despite its short length, the description covers all decision-relevant context: when to use, when not to use, performance implications, and a link to a faster alternative. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. This fully equips an agent to decide correctly.

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 schema shows one optional folder_path parameter with no description, and the description never mentions this parameter. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description should clarify whether folder_path is the OneDrive root or a subfolder, but it does not. The only implicit hint is 'the OneDrive folder', leaving the parameter's behavior ambiguous.

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 opens with a specific verb and object ('Rescans the OneDrive folder') and explains the purpose (rebuilds structure index and embeddings). It clearly distinguishes itself from get_workspace_graph by positioning itself as an occasional maintenance operation.

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 gives explicit, highly actionable usage criteria: only call when new .xlsx files are added or sheet/column names change, and do not call at session start or before every query. It also points to get_workspace_graph as the instant-access alternative.

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