Rescan the local agent, skill, MCP server, and task inventory to update stale records, and optionally transcribe each agent's logs to capture recent work.
重扫本机名册（技能/MCP/Agent/任务表），可选顺手把各 Agent 的日志抄录进来。当你怀疑数据过期、或刚做完一批活想让记录进库时调用。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transcribe | No | true 则同时抄录各 Agent 日志，默认 false |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two main behaviors (rescanning the local inventory and optionally transcribing agent logs into it), which implies a mutating/persist operation. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing records are overwritten, whether the operation is idempotent, whether it is slow/heavy, or what it returns.
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?
Compact two-part description: purpose first, usage trigger second. No wasted sentences, and the core rescan behavior is front-loaded ahead of the optional parameter note.
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?
Adequate for a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema or nested objects, but gaps remain: no return-value description, no side-effect disclosure, and no explicit routing among the seven sibling inventory tools. An agent could still mis-select it without reading the sibling schemas.
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?
Only one parameter (transcribe) exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents its meaning and default. The description reinforces the same concept (optional log transcription) without adding syntax or edge-case detail, matching the baseline of 3.
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 specific verb (重扫/rescan) with a precise resource scope (本机名册 of 技能/MCP/Agent/任务表), plus the optional log-transcription behavior. It clearly identifies the refresh-type action, which is distinct in spirit from the sibling search/overview/recent tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.
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?
Gives explicit trigger conditions: call when you suspect data is stale, or right after finishing a batch of work that should be persisted. This is actionable guidance, but it omits when-not-to-use and does not name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.