Scan Mlx Models

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that results include all repos and a `new_since_last_scan` subset, but it does not explain whether the scan updates persisted scan state, how authors are configured, or any auth/rate-limit behavior. The return-value hint is useful, but mutation/statefulness around `new_since_last_scan` remains unclear.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste. The core scanning action is front-loaded, and the return behavior follows naturally.

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 output schema exists and the description supplements it with `new_since_last_scan` semantics. However, for a scan tool with no annotations, the definition leaves important context unclear: how multiple “authors” are selected when no author parameter exists, whether scan state is persisted, and whether any permissions or limits apply.

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 100%, so the schema already documents `limit` and `search` sufficiently. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline, which is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 verb and resource: scanning Hugging Face MLX authors/repos, defaulting to mlx-community, for the newest repos. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like analyze_model and download_model, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the scanning/discovery framing and the mention of newest repos, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. An agent can infer it is a discovery step but not its place in a broader workflow.

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