scan_folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: only top-level entries are returned and hidden files are excluded, which is tidy's own filtering rule. It still omits anything about the 500-item cap or what happens when a folder exceeds it.

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?

A single sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded in the parenthetical, zero filler and no redundancy with the title or schema. Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the filtering scope adequately. However, for a scan-like tool it leaves the limit/pagination behavior and the relationship to plan_tidy unaddressed, so it is only minimally sufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description explains neither parameter. 'path' is only obliquely implied by 'folder,' and the 'limit' parameter (default 500), which materially changes results, is never mentioned. With two undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a concrete verb (list) and resource (files in a folder) plus the exact scope tidy applies, which is specific enough for an agent to recognize it without opening the schema. It does not name or contrast itself with siblings like describe_file or find_duplicates, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'files tidy would look at' suggests this is a reconnaissance step preceding plan_tidy, but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or which sibling handles the alternative (e.g., finding duplicates or describing a single file). An agent must infer the workflow position.

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