scan_file_details

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the actual operations performed (ExifTool, MediaInfo, closed-caption scan) and that results are returned, which is meaningful. However, it never explicitly states the operation is read-only/side-effect-free, and the runtime cost caveat for closed_captions lives only in the schema rather than the description.

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 tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and zero filler. The parenthetical POST endpoint is mildly redundant for an MCP consumer since the tool name already conveys the operation, but it is short and does not detract from readability.

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 four-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description plus schema cover correct invocation: what scans run, their defaults, and path scoping. The main gap is that no output schema exists and 'return the results' gives no shape of the return value, but this is a minor omission for a straightforward scan utility.

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% and each boolean parameter already documents its default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small but real semantic clarification for file_path by saying the path need not be in a library, but it contributes nothing beyond the schema for the three scan-type flags.

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 and resource: it runs ExifTool, MediaInfo and/or a closed-caption scan against a single file and returns results. The clause 'Works on any path the server can read, whether or not it is in a library' clearly differentiates it from library-scoped siblings like scan_library, so an agent can distinguish them at a glance.

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?

Gives clear context: this is for single-file scans at arbitrary server-readable paths, including outside a library. That implicitly routes the agent away from scan_library and rescan_file, but it never names an alternative or states an explicit when-not-to-use exclusion, leaving some routing to inference.

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