Scan a workspace directory to find all .genart files and retrieve metadata summaries; optionally include subdirectories and unreferenced files.
Scan the workspace directory for all .genart files with metadata summaries
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | No | Directory to scan (default: workspace directory) | |
| recursive | No | Scan subdirectories (default: false) | |
| includeUnreferenced | No | Include files not in the active workspace (default: true) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the scan is directory-based and returns metadata summaries, but says nothing about whether it is read-only, cost/performance on large trees, or how unreferenced files are surfaced. Partial disclosure only.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and output are stated immediately. It is arguably too short given what it omits, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 read-only scan with three optional params and no output schema, the description should clarify what a 'metadata summary' actually contains and whether unreferenced files are included by default. Those gaps are real but modest given the fully documented schema.
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 all three parameters (directory, recursive, includeUnreferenced) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond restating that scanning targets the workspace directory, so the baseline of 3 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?
States a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('workspace directory for all .genart files') plus the return shape ('metadata summaries'). It implicitly contrasts with workspace-level listing tools by emphasizing a filesystem directory scan, but never names a sibling, so the boundary with list_workspace_sketches is left to the agent to infer.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus list_workspace_sketches, search_sketches, or list_sketches, and no exclusions. The agent must guess whether this is a raw filesystem listing or the workspace-aware listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.