scan_literature

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states it scans subdirectories, uses parent folder name as a tag, and deduplicates by title. These details cover the main behaviors (scanning, registration, deduplication) and are consistent with the tool's purpose. No contradictions.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded: first sentence states the core action, second adds scope details, third explains safety. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy. Ideal structure for quick agent comprehension.

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 tool has low complexity (no parameters, simple scanning behavior) and an output schema exists (though not shown, the context confirms it). The description covers scanning, registration, tagging, and deduplication—sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's effect and safe usage. No obvious gaps given the scope.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add. Schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description provides no parameter-related information, but none is needed. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 action ('Scan'), the specific resource ('inputs/literature/ for new PDFs'), and the outcome ('register them in literature_metadata'). It also adds details like walking subdirectories and using parent folder name as a domain tag, making it distinct from sibling tools like 'full_scan' or 'scan_pdf_library'.

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 explicitly notes that deduplication makes repeated runs safe, implying it can be run idempotently without harm. While it doesn't list alternatives or when not to use, the context of sibling tools (e.g., 'index_pdf_library') combined with the specific target folder provides reasonable guidance for selection.

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