mz_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses useful behavioral constraints: max_files caps how many files are scanned and year determines setup-extension matching. However, it does not clarify whether the scan is recursive, what the output/return structure looks like, or whether the operation is strictly read-only.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clean Args block for parameter details. Every sentence or line adds information without redundancy.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and all parameter semantics, which is enough to invoke it with just root. But with no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about the return format, whether scanning is recursive, and what '按类型归类' produces in practice.

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 fully compensates. It explains root as an absolute path, max_files as a scan limit with a default of 5000, and year as an optional selector that determines MIKE Zero setup extensions. These semantics go well beyond the bare schema types.

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 a specific action ('扫描一个工程目录') and a concrete result ('按类型归类 MIKE Zero 的 setup 文件与结果文件'). It is distinct from mz_read_setup/mz_dfs_read, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools.

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 implied: this is the tool to use when you want to scan a project directory and classify MIKE Zero files. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions alternatives like mz_read_setup or mz_dfs_info.

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