full_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool runs four scans, adds new items to news_briefs, registers PDFs, flags unprocessed items, and reports changed files. It explicitly states no LLM calls and safety. However, it does not mention idempotency or potential conflicts between scans.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and uses a clear bullet list for the scans. Every sentence adds information, and there is no wasted text.

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 the tool triggers multiple scans and has an output schema (not shown), the description covers what each scan does and that a combined report is returned. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope, though details about the report format are omitted.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds value by explaining what the tool does without needing to describe parameters, listing the scans that are executed.

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 the tool's purpose: running all Metis update scans in sequence and returning a combined report. It lists the four specific scans (news feeds, literature folder, inbox, tracked files), making it distinct from sibling tools that perform single scans.

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 indicates it is safe to run at any time and involves no LLM calls, giving clear context. It implies using this tool for a full update versus individual scan tools, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the specific scan tools.

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