rescan_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's effect (rescanning for new/modified/deleted files), the automatic alternative (file watcher), and what it returns (summary). It does not describe potential side effects on an internal index, but the core behavior is clear.

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 moderately verbose but well-structured with a clear opening statement, bulleted usage cases, and a returns section. It could be tightened, but every sentence contributes value and the layout aids comprehension.

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 tool with no annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage timing, behavioral context, and return value. It also implicitly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on rescanning rather than reading, listing, or searching. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return structure, but the description still satisfies that need.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per baseline guidance a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since none exist, and the schema already confirms this.

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 function: 'Manually rescan the folder for new, modified, or deleted markdown files.' The verb 'rescan' and resource 'folder' are specific, and the scope is distinct from sibling tools like read_file, list_files, and search_markdown.

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?

Explicit 'Use this tool if' section lists concrete scenarios (new files not showing, force refresh, file watcher unavailable). It also explains that the file watcher normally handles this automatically, giving clear guidance on when manual control is appropriate.

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