scan_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and details that the scan is recursive and excludes connector folders. It also specifies that keywords are reported verbatim and null when absent, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention performance implications, permissions, or the exact output structure, though the lack of side effects is well covered.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Scan the working folder...') before detailing specifics. Every phrase adds value—the file types, the list of attributes, the astrometric solution detection, and the exclusions. It is not overly verbose, though the long list of keywords makes it a bit dense; it could be broken into a structured list for readability, but it remains efficient.

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 there is no output schema, the description must fully explain what the tool returns. It lists the exact header values and the astrometric solution check, plus the null-when-absent behavior. It also states the scan is recursive and read-only. This is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and likely output, though the exact return format (e.g., JSON shape) is not specified—acceptable without an 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema describes none. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to explain. Per the rubric, with 0 params the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the output rather than parameters, which is appropriate.

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 precise verb ('scan') and resource (working folder for XISF/FITS files) and enumerates exactly what it reports per file (FILTER, geometry, exposure, astrometric solution presence, and six specific keywords). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_filters by focusing on header extraction rather than filter discovery.

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 clearly states the scope of the scan and what it does, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., workspace_info, find_filters). There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling might be better for a different purpose. The only constraint given is that connector state/output folders are excluded, which is a behavioral note, not usage guidance.

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