scan_tracked_files

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

The description discloses internal actions: reads the tracked_files table, checks file modification times, and updates last_scanned timestamps. With no annotations, this provides adequate transparency for a simple scan tool, though it omits potential side effects beyond timestamp updates.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second elaborates on internal steps. Every word adds value.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema (implied but not shown), the description fully explains the tool's job, behavior, and side effects. No additional information is needed given the tool's simplicity.

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 the description adds meaning by explaining the tool's functionality. Schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description compensates for lack of parameters by describing what the tool scans and updates.

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 verb (scan) and resource (tracked files) and specifies the outcome (report which have changed). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_tracked_file and remove_tracked_file by focusing on scanning existing tracked files.

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 implies usage for checking changed tracked files, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_project_folder or scan_folder_for_intent. No when-not-to-use or exclusions are mentioned.

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