raynet_full_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool scans endpoints and returns a mapping, which implies a read-only discovery operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it mention permissions, response size, or potential runtime cost.

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 only two sentences: the first states the action and result, and the second gives the practical use case. There is no filler or repetition, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool, the description covers what it scans and what it returns. It is concise and sufficient, though it does not describe the exact shape of the returned mapping or any operational caveats, which would be useful given there is no output schema.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter burden on the description. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly focuses on purpose and output rather than arguments.

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 ('scans') and names the resources ('lead, businessCase, company, person, enumerations'), with a clear output ('mapping of structure, fields, and picklists'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like raynet_get_structure or raynet_get_enumerations, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear use case: 'discover the available ID values for statuses, categories, sources, etc.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as raynet_get_enumerations or raynet_get_structure.

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