scan_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions scanning and queueing but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing data is modified), permissions needed, or the meaning of parameters like 'reparse' or 'limit'.

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, well-formed sentence with no redundancy. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter details without losing conciseness.

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 has three parameters and an output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, pagination (implied by limit/token), or the difference between 'queue' and 'register'. It misses the opportunity to fully specify usage in context.

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 three parameters (reparse, limit, token) with zero coverage in the description. The description does not explain their purpose, defaults, or expected behavior, leaving the agent without guidance for correct invocation.

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 ('Scan the NAS inbox'), target resource ('supported SciFinder exports'), and outcome ('queue/register new files'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which mention NAS inbox or SciFinder.

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 usage for registering SciFinder exports but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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