rescan_filesystem

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses the important behavioral distinction between immediate script syncing and background asset importing, and notes that the result may say it is still scanning. It also clarifies the path-scoped behavior and how default scanning targets unregistered class_names or stale loaded copies.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence establishes the purpose, then immediate script syncing, background asset scanning, path scoping, and automatic write-tool behavior follow in order. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 single optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly, including the default behavior, immediate vs background outcomes, and which sibling tools already handle their own writes. Annotations cover safety and idempotency.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the paths parameter and its default. The description reinforces that passing paths syncs only those files, but does not add new syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource: making the editor see files written outside it. It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling write tools by noting that write_file, write_script, and script_patch already handle files they write.

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 clearly says when to use the tool: after files are written outside the editor by external tools, git, or generators. It also names alternatives and explains that the write_* tools already do this for files they write, which directly answers when not to use this tool.

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