scan_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the file is not modified and original values are not returned, which are key behavioral traits for a scan tool. It also lists supported formats, providing additional transparency.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and key guarantees, followed by a compact list of supported formats. No extraneous words.

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?

The description explains the tool's output nature (counts and types, no original values) but lacks a detailed return structure or error handling expectations. Given no output schema, it could be more explicit, but for a scan tool with 7 params, the provided information is reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 86% (6/7 parameters have descriptions), so the schema already explains parameter meanings. The description itself does not add parameter details beyond noting file formats, which corresponds to the 'path' parameter but is already partially covered by the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Показать' - show) and resource ('что будет скрыто в файле'), clearly indicating a preview/scan function that counts and types findings. It distinguishes from siblings like mask_document (which actually modifies the file).

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 non-destructive previewing but does not explicitly contrast with mask_document or other sibling tools. It provides clear context (file not modified, original values not returned) but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives.

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