scan_model_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key trait—'without opening KOMPAS'—which implies a lightweight, read-only scan. Yet it does not mention return format, side effects, or limitations such as performance or lock semantics, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and every word contributes to clarifying the tool's scope and key differentiator.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits the return value, parameter semantics, and how it relates to sibling tools, requiring the agent to infer too much for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly hints at 'root' via 'folder or a single file'. It does not explain 'max_files', 'recursive', 'extensions', or especially 'include_locks', leaving the agent to guess their meaning. The description fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan') and identifies the resource ('a folder or a single file' for 'KOMPAS model files'). The qualifier 'without opening KOMPAS' clearly distinguishes it from session-dependent document tools, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'without opening KOMPAS' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when file discovery is needed without establishing a KOMPAS session. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or offer when-not-to-use exclusions, so it stops 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.