nzbget_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. 'Scan for new NZB files' implies a read-only discovery operation, but doesn't specify whether this triggers automatic downloads, how it interacts with the queue, what 'new' means (time-based or status-based), or what happens if no new files are found. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise at just four words ('Scan for new NZB files'), front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every element earns its place by specifying the action, target, and scope.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about what the scan actually does, what 'new' means operationally, and what the expected output format might be. The current description is too minimal for a tool that presumably interacts with a download queue system and has behavioral implications.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and the schema already fully documents the empty parameter set. No additional parameter information is required or provided.

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 'Scan for new NZB files' clearly states the action (scan) and target resource (NZB files), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nzbget_list_groups' or 'nzbget_history' which might also involve file discovery or listing operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it differs from related tools like 'nzbget_list_groups' or 'nzbget_history' that might also provide file information.

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