tdarr_scan

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mode semantics, but never states that this is a mutating action, that the default is a dry run, or that apply needs a planHash (those details live only in the schema). Adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the action, and the mode options are given inline with their default. Every clause earns its place.

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 5-parameter, un-annotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it omits the dry-run/apply/planHash safety path and the meaning of host and library. The schema covers some of this, but the description alone is not sufficient.

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 60% and the description adds meaning for the mode enum only ('only new files' vs 're-scan everything'). It supplies nothing for host, library (undocumented in the schema), apply, or planHash, leaving the biggest workflow decisions to 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?

States a specific verb (scan) and resource (Tdarr library), and the two modes are named and distinguished by their effect (only new files vs re-scan everything). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from neighboring tdarr_* siblings, but 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?

It usefully explains when to pick each mode (new-only vs full re-scan), which is implied guidance. It gives no guidance on when to use this versus tdarr_status/tdarr_pause, and does not mention the dry-run-then-apply workflow, so the agent must infer the safe invocation order from the schema.

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