file_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states '只读' (read-only), which is the critical safety trait, and describes the return payload. However, it does not mention edge cases such as pattern filtering behavior, recursion depth, or error handling, preventing a perfect score.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and output. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a relatively simple scanner tool.

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?

The description covers the core scan and return metadata well, but it omits any mention of the pattern parameter, usage context relative to siblings, and edge cases. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the lack of parameter and usage information makes it incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only vaguely references the directory via '扫描目录', which hints at the 'path' parameter. The 'pattern' parameter with its default '*' is completely omitted, and no details are given about how it affects results. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 (read-only directory scan) and explicitly lists the returned metadata fields (name/path/size/mtime/extension) plus the subdirectory list. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like file_organize_apply or file_clean_apply, which modify or organize files rather than merely scan.

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 read-only nature implies usage for inspection, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage context is implied but not clearly articulated.

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