scan_inbox

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses file detection, transcription via faster-whisper, file movement to processed/, and handling of non-audio files. However, it does not mention any side effects like overwriting or deletion, and permissions are not discussed.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value, and the parameter documentation is clearly separated. No fluff.

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's simplicity (one boolean parameter, clear behavior) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers input, processing steps, and outcome (transcript as idea, file moved). No missing critical details.

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 single parameter auto_transcribe_audio is fully explained in the description, including its default value and effect (transcribe vs list). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description provides all necessary semantics, which is excellent.

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 action: scanning the inbox folder and auto-transcribing audio files into ideas. It specifies supported file formats, the default behavior, and the outcome (capturing transcript as an idea). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'capture_idea' (manual) and 'transcribe_recording' (single file).

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 when to use the tool (to process audio files in inbox/auto-transcribe or list them) and the behavior of the parameter. While it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools, the context is clear for an agent to decide. Minor gap: no mention of prerequisites or when not to use.

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