scan_vst_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Scan' clearly indicates a read-only discovery operation, and the explicit reference to .dll files plus the recursive option explains traversal behavior. It does not cover edge cases like invalid paths or permission errors, but the output schema likely covers the result shape and this is a simple non-destructive tool.

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 clear opening sentence followed by a compact Args list with no filler. The example path earns its place by clarifying the expected path format, making the structure efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only scan with an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient: purpose, target file type, path example, and recursion toggle are all included. It lacks explicit usage conditions or alternative routing, but the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema make that a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args block is essential and fully compensates. The directory parameter gets a purpose plus a concrete path example, and recursive is explicitly defined as 'Include subdirectories'.

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 states a specific action ('Scan'), a specific resource ('a folder'), and a specific target ('VST plugin DLLs (.dll files)'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as list_available_plugins or add_vst_track.

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 should be used when discovering VST DLLs on disk, but it never explicitly states when to use it instead of plugin-related alternatives or gives exclusions. There is no sibling comparison or contextual routing, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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