alcove_mount_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects. This is a critical gap for safe invocation.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices essential information. It is appropriately front-loaded but lacks the detail needed for effective use.

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 has 3 unannotated parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description does not clarify what the scan does, what it returns, or how parameters affect behavior. It is drastically incomplete for an agent to use 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 input schema has 3 parameters (home, mount_id, workspace) with zero description coverage. The tool description provides no additional meaning for any of these parameters, leaving the agent to guess their roles and formats.

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 uses a specific verb ('scan') and indicates the resource ('mounted external sources'), giving a basic sense of purpose. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'alcove_mount_list' or 'alcove_mount_add', leaving ambiguity about what 'scan' specifically entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to scan vs. list mounts). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, making it hard for an agent to decide appropriately.

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