scan_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is asynchronous, returns a track_id, and can be skipped with a specific status when the pipeline is busy. This is more than sufficient for an agent to understand side effects and expected behavior.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by return behavior and an edge-case refusal. Every sentence adds actionable 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential workflow: what the scan does, what is returned, how to follow up, and when a refusal may occur. Nothing important is missing for correct invocation.

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, so the schema conveys everything about inputs. The description adds no param-specific semantics, but none are needed. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 ('Trigger'), a clear resource ('LightRAG's input directory'), and a precise action (scan for new files not yet indexed). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_scan_status and upload_file.

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 clearly communicates when this tool is appropriate: when new files need to be scanned into the index. It also tells the agent what to do after calling it (poll with get_scan_status) and describes a busy condition. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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