Scan a directory for C2PA content credentials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses non-recursiveness and the output fields (C2PA presence, verdict, signer, AI-generation). It implies a read-only audit, but does not explicitly state no modifications or permissions needed. Slightly under-disclosed, but still useful.

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 with no wasted words. First sentence defines output scope, second sentence adds usage context and a key behavioral constraint. Highly efficient.

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?

The description specifies the outputs (C2PA credentials, verdict, signer, AI-generated) without an output schema, which is adequate. Parameter count is low and well-documented in schema. Sibling tools provide context. Could mention whether it only scans media files or include a brief example, but overall complete.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (maxFiles with default and max, directory as path or URI). The tool description adds no further parameter-level details beyond the 'non-recursive' behavioral note, which is already stated. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 audits a folder of media files and reports C2PA credentials, verdict, signer, and AI-generation status. It specifies non-recursive behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on single files or URLs.

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 includes an explicit usage directive ('Use this to triage a directory of images/videos at once'), providing clear context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, but sibling names imply differentiation.

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