scan_environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits — that the operation is read-only and that returned paths are concealed — but says nothing about permissions required, cost/latency of a filesystem scan, or what form the inventory takes.

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?

A single dense clause with zero filler and the read-only qualifier front-loaded. The trailing 'paths concealed' is cryptic but occupies only three words, so the sentence still earns its place.

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?

For a discovery tool with no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters, the description should explain the shape of the returned inventory and the role of the directory arguments. Instead it provides one line, leaving the tool's actual output behavior entirely unexplained.

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% for both parameters, and the description never mentions game_dir or documents_dir or explains that empty defaults imply auto-detection. The agent is left to guess whether these are overrides for discovery roots or required inputs.

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 names the resource categories (game, camera, PP filter, recorder inventory) and marks the operation read-only, which partly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like list_camera_tools or list_pp_filters. However, 'scan_environment' is never resolved into a concrete verb-and-object statement, so an agent cannot tell whether this discovers installations on disk or aggregates existing tool listings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite eight sibling tools that all enumerate or validate parts of the same domain. The agent must infer that this is a discovery/first-step call rather than something selected by condition.

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