Force rescan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions cache invalidation and re-parsing every file, which implies a destructive/expensive operation. It also states the return value. It does not mention prerequisites, time cost, or potential side effects, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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: the first explains the action and return, the second gives the use case. Every word is purposeful, front-loaded, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It lacks details about side effects or performance implications, but the provided information is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 schema covers the sole parameter 'root' with a clear description ('Absolute path to the SvelteKit/Svelte project root to analyze'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description need not add parameter details. The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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 action: 'Invalidate all caches for the project and re-parse every file from scratch.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from the sibling retrieval tools (get_graph, get_component, etc.). It also mentions the return summary, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use when you want to guarantee fresh results.' This indicates when to choose scan over the get_* tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain when not to use it, stopping short of a 5.

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