anamnesis_scan_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the return fields (paths, types, projects, line counts), the paginated nature, and the offset continuation pattern, but says nothing about permissions/auth needs, rate limits, or whether the scan has any side effects on the filesystem.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: what it discovers, what it returns, and how to page. The scope constraint and first-step guidance are front-loaded.

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 read-only scan with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, pagination, and workflow position adequately. Minor gaps remain around read-only safety guarantees and the handoff to fetch_source, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains the offset continuation pattern ('Call again with offset to get more'), which gives real semantics for `offset`, but `limit` is never mentioned and its default of 20 is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Discover') on a specific resource ('Claude session and plan files that have not yet been imported into Anamnesis'), with a scope filter (not-yet-imported) that separates it from sibling tools like anamnesis_fetch_source and anamnesis_split_source. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool as 'the first step when importing the user's conversation history into memory' and explains the pagination follow-up ('Call again with offset to get more'). It gives clear usage context but does not name the downstream alternative (e.g. fetch_source) or state when NOT to use it.

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