mister_rescan

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action but fails to mention safety (e.g., whether it modifies existing data), permissions needed, or side effects. The description is too sparse for full transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the optional parameter detail. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the action and the parameter. However, it could mention that it only detects new games (not re-scan existing) and what happens after scanning, but given the lack of output schema, this is acceptable.

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 already covers the single parameter with 100% description. The description adds value by providing concrete examples (sd, usb0, usb1) and clarifying that omitting the parameter rescans all locations, which goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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 tool rescans the ROM library to detect new games, with an option to scan a specific drive. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'mister_launch' or 'mister_info'.

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 implies when to use the tool (after adding new ROMs) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. It is implicit but lacks explicit guidance.

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