scan_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: scanning is asynchronous and should be followed with get_scanner_status. It also explains what each mode does (adds new files, rescans from scratch, scans specific paths), which goes beyond the schema.

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 exactly three sentences with no filler: it states the action, explains the modes, and gives post-invocation guidance. Each sentence 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 4-parameter asynchronous action with no output schema, the description covers the start action, mode selection, and follow-up polling. It does not state what the API immediately returns, but the polling instruction partially fills that gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the three mode values in plain language and implicitly linking scanFolderWatcher to the paths parameter, which the schema only labels as 'required for scanFolderWatcher'.

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 'Start' and resource 'a file scan on a library', names the HTTP endpoint, and explains all three scan modes. This clearly distinguishes it from status-only or single-file sibling tools.

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 clear context for starting a library scan and tells the caller to poll get_scanner_status for progress. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like rescan_file or scan_file_details, nor any exclusions.

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