goodnotes_scan_board

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

With annotations already declaring openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds real context: it is resumable via scanId, returns compact progress rather than full results, and explicitly disclaims exhaustive coverage. It does not explain why readOnlyHint is false (presumably preview persistence or scan-state writes), which is the one notable behavioral gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, then the resumability contract, then the scope caveat. Dense and largely waste-free, though "measured native viewport coordinates" is jargon that adds little without supporting parameter detail.

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 an 8-parameter, open-world, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle (resumable, progress-only return) and honest scope limits but omits what the progress payload looks like and how tiling parameters interact. It is enough to understand the intent but not enough to call it correctly without reading the 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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, yet it only gestures at scanId (resumability) and the grid notion behind rows/columns. It says nothing about overlap, maxTiles, zoomSteps, savePreviews, or what the url parameter points to, leaving five of eight parameters uninterpretable from the definition.

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 and resource ("Scan a bounded grid of a whiteboard") plus the mechanism ("measured native viewport coordinates and local OCR"), which is far more informative than the name alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling goodnotes_search_board_scan, leaving the scan-vs-search boundary to inference.

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 caveat "Does not claim complete coverage of an infinite board" implies the tool is for bounded regions and that callers may need multiple passes, and "Resumable by scanId" hints at multi-call workflows. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus searching an existing scan, nor any prerequisite or sequencing guidance.

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