makemkv_scan_disc

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent operations, which the description doesn't contradict. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it mentions scanning for specific data types but doesn't cover aspects like execution time, error handling, or dependencies on disc presence. With annotations providing safety hints, the description adds some value but lacks depth.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Scan a disc') and lists key outputs. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 low complexity (one parameter, simple scanning operation), annotations covering safety, and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what data is scanned for, which aligns with the tool's purpose. However, it lacks details on usage context or parameter meanings, leaving minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, so it adds no semantic information beyond what the schema provides. However, with only one parameter (a nested object with two fields), the baseline is moderate as the tool is simple, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('a disc'), listing what it scans for ('titles, streams, durations, and sizes'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'makemkv_list_drives' (which lists drives) or 'makemkv_rip_title' (which rips content), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a disc inserted or how it differs from 'makemkv_list_drives' for drive information. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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