rescan_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the immediate effect (refreshes ffProbe data and queue status) and implies mutation via the POST method. However, it does not mention side effects on an in-progress queue entry, reversibility, failure modes, or what response to expect — meaningful gaps for a write operation.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The primary action and purpose lead, the endpoint is tucked into parentheses, and the usage condition is a clean second sentence. Every word 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 simple 2-parameter action with fully documented schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to call it. The remaining gap is the absence of any mention of the response shape or behavior when the file is not found or is mid-processing — with no output schema, a brief note on the return would fully close it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well — file_id even tells the agent where to source the value ('from search_files') and library_id explains it is the dbID. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, landing at the baseline of 3.

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 ('Rescan') with a scoped resource ('a single file') and states the exact purpose (refreshes ffProbe data and queue status). The phrase 'single file' clearly distinguishes it from sibling scan_library, and the endpoint reference adds precision. This is a model of purpose clarity.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Use it after changing a file on disk outside Tdarr.' This tells an agent exactly when the tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of the 5-level explicitness.

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