scan_document

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

No annotations provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or what side effects occur. The return value is also unknown since no output schema exists.

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 extremely short (6 words), which is concise in length but fails to provide necessary information. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and detailed parameter guidance, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not help an agent understand when to invoke this tool or what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional context or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Pre-ingestion scanning for RAG documents' indicates the general purpose of scanning documents before adding to a RAG system, but does not specify what kind of scanning (e.g., security, content validation) or how it differs from sibling tools like scan_input or scan_output.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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