scan_cleanliness

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

没有 annotations，描述的核心“扫描”暗示只读操作，并列出检查内容，但没有说明是否只读、是否有副作用、输出形式或对文件的具体处理方式。比完全没说明好，但仍有明显信息缺口。

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?

单句描述，信息高度集中，先说明动作和对象，再补充具体文件类型，没有冗余内容。

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?

工具无输出 schema、无注释、无参数说明，描述仅覆盖扫描范围和部分关注点，未说明返回值、操作影响或参数含义。对于两个必填参数的工具而言，信息不足以让代理准确预期结果。

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?

输入 schema 中两个参数均无描述，schema description coverage 为 0%，描述文本也没有解释 mc_dir 和 instance_id 的用途或格式，参数语义完全未得到补充。

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?

描述使用明确的动词“扫描”并指向特定资源“mods/ 目录中的非 JAR 文件”，且列举了目标文件类型（.ps1/.bat、.txt、source-jar、dev jar），与 list_mods 等兄弟工具形成区分。

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?

描述语义上暗示了“扫描非 JAR 文件”，与 list_mods 之类的工具形成对比，但没有显式说明何时使用该工具以及何时使用其他替代工具，没有清晰的 when/when-not 指导。

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