scan_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: detection of audio files, transcription using faster-whisper, capturing transcript as an idea, moving processed files, and listing non-audio files. It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but provides adequate transparency.

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 well-structured: a summary sentence, then details on file types, default behavior, file movement, and non-audio handling, followed by an Args section. It is front-loaded but slightly verbose; could be more concise.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: input parameter effect, process steps (detection, transcription, moving files), and handling of non-audio files. No gaps detected.

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 no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description fully compensates by explaining that auto_transcribe_audio controls automatic transcription versus listing. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 it scans the inbox folder and auto-transcribes audio files to ideas, listing supported formats. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like transcribe_recording or scan_folder_for_intent, though the scope (inbox folder, auto-transcription) implies a specific use case.

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 explains the primary use (scanning and auto-transcribing) and the parameter for turning off transcription, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., transcribe_recording for single files) or when not to use it.

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