ocr_poll_scanner_share

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'pull and process new files' but does not disclose side effects such as whether files are moved, deleted, marked as processed, or whether the operation is idempotent. This is a significant gap for a tool that obviously mutates state on an external share.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the main action efficiently, though the vague 'process' wording could be tightened for greater precision.

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 zero-parameter action with no output schema, the description gives the core action but leaves important context unexplained: what 'process' means, what happens to the files afterward, whether it can be safely re-run, and what the caller should expect. This is minimally viable but not 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?

The input schema has no parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the zero-parameter shape is consistent with an action-style tool that uses preconfigured settings.

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 names a specific action (connect to a configured SMB scanner share, pull and process new files) and the resource (scanner share). It is distinct from sibling tools like ocr_get_record or ocr_review_queue, though the word 'process' is vague and could overlap with ocr_batch_process.

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 implies this is the tool to poll the scanner share, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrasts with alternatives such as ocr_batch_process. There is no mention of prerequisites, scheduling, or conditions under which another tool would be preferred.

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