catalog_scan

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 execution context ('isolated worker') and a limitation ('not render compatibility certification'), but omits details on side effects, failure modes, permissions, or reversibility. It provides some behavioral context but is not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences with no waste. The primary action is front-loaded, and the caveat is placed at the end. It is efficiently structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, return behavior, and clear differentiation from sibling scan tools. The disclaimer is useful but insufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional context.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter (format or location) at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's property definitions, which is a significant gap since the schema only provides the enum and basic type.

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 states a specific verb ('scan'), resource ('ONE candidate'), and outcome ('register its plugins'). It is clear and uses 'isolated worker' to hint at a narrower scope than sibling tools like catalog_index, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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?

The description implies usage for scanning a single candidate and includes a caveat about what success does not certify (render compatibility), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like catalog_index or plugin_verify, nor does it provide exclusions.

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