scan_doc

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses behavioral traits: it uses the Source Parts document scanning API backed by Google Magika, and it identifies the file's true content type regardless of extension. This is sufficient for a read-only scanning operation.

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 a brief explanation, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value with 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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema, high schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, and underlying mechanism.

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 already describes the only parameter ('file_path') as an absolute path to a local file, with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score applies.

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 a local file'), the resource ('local file'), and the outcome ('detect its true content type'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on content type detection using Magika.

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 includes a specific use case ('checking whether a file would be accepted by the safelist before uploading it'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare to alternative tools.

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