init_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 reveals that the tool scans all text by default and that it should be followed by get_text/release_scan, which implies a managed lifecycle, but it does not state side effects, whether a scan handle is returned, or cleanup obligations explicitly.

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 compact and front-loaded: one purpose sentence, one default-flag note, then a concise Args block. No repetitive or filler content; every line earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter init with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, prerequisites via doc_id, companion tools, and parameter meanings. The main gap is not stating the lifecycle cleanup explicitly, but the mention of release_scan mitigates that.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: doc_id is sourced from open_document, option's default 119 means all text, and range 0 means entire document. It doesn't enumerate every possible flag/range value, but it explains the primary semantics for all three parameters.

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 opens with a specific action, 'Initialize document scanning for text extraction,' and separates it from siblings by naming its companion functions get_text and release_scan. This makes it clear the tool is a preparatory scan step, not an extraction or cleanup operation.

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?

'Use with get_text/release_scan' explicitly gives the workflow context and positions init_scan as the first step in a scan lifecycle. It does not list when-not-to-use alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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