xp3_re_scan_game

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only scanning action and an emitted playbook, but does not explain whether the playbook is written to disk or returned, or any side effects. The verb 'scan' implies non-destructive behavior, covering the most important trait, but deeper behavior is left ambiguous.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential action and target file types, making the tool invocable. However, 'RE playbook' is domain jargon and is not defined, and there is no mention of return values or whether any files are produced, leaving a moderate ambiguity gap.

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 schema already describes game_dir as 'Game directory' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little contextual value by clarifying this is the folder scanned for XP3/TPM/EXE, but it does not add format, path, or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('scan'), a clear resource ('game folder'), and explicit file extensions (XP3/TPM/EXE), while also stating the output ('emit an RE playbook'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on specific inspection, unpacking, or workflow execution steps.

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 the tool is used when you need to scan a game folder for XP3/TPM/EXE files and generate an RE playbook, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like xp3_re_analyze or re_discover. No exclusionary or alternative guidance is provided.

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