Metis · News Radar — Scan Literature

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: recursive directory walk, domain tagging, title-based deduplication. However, it doesn't specify what happens to duplicates (skip? overwrite?) or mention any authorization needs.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence adds value: purpose, behavior details, and safety guarantee. No redundant information.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers main points (location, action, safety, dedup). Could mention supported file types beyond PDFs or behavior on existing entries, but it's largely complete.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds operational context (subdirectory walk, tagging) that compensates for the lack of parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('inputs/literature/ for new PDFs') and action ('register them in literature_metadata'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scan_folder_for_intent' or 'scan_news' by specifying the target directory and file type.

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 that it walks all subdirectories, uses parent folder as domain tag, and deduplicates by title, making re-runs safe. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the context is clear enough to guide appropriate use.

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