full_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool runs scans sequentially, returns a combined report, uses no LLM calls, and is safe. It lists the four scan components and their effects (e.g., 'new items added to news_briefs'). However, it does not detail potential side effects or authorization requirements.

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 very concise: a single opening sentence followed by a bulleted list of the four scan steps and a final safety note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and front-loads the purpose.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, the sequence of scans, their effects, and a safety note. Although an output schema exists, the description is not required to explain return values. For a parameterless tool with no annotations, this description provides complete context for safe and correct usage.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (no parameters to document). The description correctly adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides. For a parameterless tool, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Run all Metis update scans in sequence and return a combined report' with a specific verb (run) and resource (all Metis update scans). It lists four distinct steps (news feeds, literature folder, inbox, tracked files), distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_news, scan_literature, etc.

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 mentions 'No LLM calls. Safe to run at any time,' providing context on when it's appropriate to use. It implies that this tool is for running all scans at once rather than individually, but it lacks explicit comparisons or alternatives (e.g., 'Use instead of running each scan separately').

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