paper_scan_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists files non-destructively and that files moved elsewhere will no longer appear, implying idempotent behavior without separate tracking. This adds useful context beyond the basic scanning functionality.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main action and follows with usage guidance and a behavioral note, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage workflow, and a key behavioral trait (disappearance of moved files). No gaps exist for an AI agent to misinterpret.

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% as both parameters have descriptions. The description restates the folder concept ('지정한 폴더') but does not add extra semantic details beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 scans a folder for paper PDF files, using specific verbs ('스캔합니다' - scans) and resources ('논문 PDF 파일 목록'). It distinguishes itself from siblings (paper_move, paper_read_text) by being the first step in classification/move workflow.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool first when finding classification/move targets ('가장 먼저 호출하세요'). It also explains that moved files disappear, eliminating the need for separate tracking. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives.

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