check_iso

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of ISO files, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention error handling, path permissions, or whether the scan is recursive. It is honest but minimal.

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 concise and well-structured: one-sentence purpose, return value, common paths, and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states what is returned and gives usage examples. It could mention whether the scan is recursive or what happens when no ISOs are found, but these are minor gaps.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates with an 'Args' section explaining the 'path' parameter, including its default and common example values. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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 action ('Scan a shared folder') and the resource ('ISO files'), making it distinct from sibling tools like download_iso or mount_iso. The verb 'scan' and the object 'available ISO files' specify exactly what the tool does.

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 gives context by listing common paths and provides a default, implying when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., list_images) or provide exclusions. It lacks direct 'when to use vs. when not to use' guidance.

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