scan_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses scanning behavior, file types, subfolder inclusion, report contents (counts, confidence), and rate limits. It does not mention if files are modified, but 'audit' implies read-only. Good coverage for a 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 well-structured with a headline, details, and tier info. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. No wasted 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?

Given no output schema, the description gives a good overview of the return report. It covers scope, limits, and file types. Lacks details on error handling or non-music files, but sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 0%. The description explains folder_path (absolute path) but does not mention max_files. The phrase 'scans every audio file it finds' contradicts the default max_files=200, potentially misleading the agent. Missing parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool audits an entire folder of music files for AI-generated tracks, specifies supported file types, and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing 'ENTIRE folder' mode. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 mentions pointing at a library folder and daily limits but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or when to use sibling tools like detect_ai_music for single files. The context is implied but not explicit.

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