Scan Directory for Detailed Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'security screening' behavior and recursive scanning support, but it does not disclose potential performance implications or external interactions (openWorldHint) beyond that. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is a modest contribution.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional features are stated in one concise sentence. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's function.

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?

With seven parameters and no output schema, the description is thin on important context. It does not explain how this tool compares to list_files or find_largest_files, nor does it describe the output format (json vs markdown) or the depth/limit trade-offs. The agent lacks enough information to call it optimally.

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 86%, so most parameters are already explained. The description mentions 'recursive scanning' and 'security screening,' which loosely map to include_subdirs, max_depth, and screen_files, but it does not add syntax, defaults, or relationships beyond what the schema provides. It adds marginal value over the schema.

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 a specific action ('scan directory') and the resource, plus what kind of data is returned ('size, dates, and extensions'). The purpose is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_files or find_largest_files, which also read directory contents.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternative scanning or listing tools. It merely describes what it does without mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparable siblings. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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