scan_books_directory

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden. "Scans" and "calculates" imply a non-mutating read, which is useful signal, but nothing is said about permission requirements, behavior on a missing/invalid path, or cost of recursive traversal (the default in the schema).

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the action and the outputs with no filler. It could add a routing hint but wastes no words.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema and fully documented params, the description covers what is scanned and roughly what is returned (counts, estimated pages, sizes). Only edge-case behavior and result shape granularity are missing.

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%, so directory_path and recursive are already documented, and the description adds no further meaning about path handling or recursion. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (scans) and resource (local directory of PDF/Word books) plus what it computes (file count, estimated pages, file sizes). It is clearly distinct from the sibling conversion tools, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus convert_book_to_word or batch_convert_folder, nor any mention of prerequisites or ordering. The user must infer that this is a pre-conversion discovery step.

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