scan_component_libraries

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the scan is limited to 'standalone' files and 'allowed roots', which is useful context. However, it does not state that it is read-only, describe side effects, or explain behavior when no files are found. The term 'find' implies non-destructive scanning, but this is not explicit.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning; there is 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core purpose but omits usage alternatives and parameter details. The output schema likely handles return information, so that gap is acceptable. However, the lack of annotations and explicit usage guidance leaves moderate gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It indirectly references the 'root' parameter via 'allowed roots' but provides no meaning for 'recursive'. The parameter names and defaults in the schema are self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and a clear resource ('standalone DipTrace Component Library XML files') with a scope ('inside allowed roots'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_pattern_libraries and scan_diptrace_documents.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or when a different scanner (e.g., scan_pattern_libraries) would be more appropriate. Context like 'allowed roots' hints at constraints but does not aid in tool selection.

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