scansiona_cartella_prodotti

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, states existing products are ignored, and describes the payload returned for new products (category, image paths, raw .txt text). It omits failure modes (invalid path, unreadable folder, missing .txt) and any permission/filesystem-access notes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the constraint, then the next-step instructions; nearly every sentence earns its place. Slightly dense parenthetical phrasing costs it a perfect score.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description rightly explains what is returned (category, image paths, raw text) and that existing products are skipped. Minor gaps remain: whether existing products are listed or merely counted, and the shape of the returned collection.

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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter has just a title ('Percorso Cartella'), so the description must compensate. It does partially by implying the expected directory layout, but it never clarifies whether percorso_cartella is the root containing category folders or a single category folder, nor absolute vs relative path.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: it compares a local folder structured as `<Categoria>/<Prodotto>/` (photos + .txt) against the WooCommerce catalog to separate existing from new products. The scope is explicit and distinguishable from siblings like lista_prodotti or crea_prodotto.

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?

Explicitly says what it does NOT do ('Non crea né modifica nulla') and prescribes the follow-up workflow: extract price/description from the raw .txt, then call crea_prodotto for each new product. It also anchors the intended trigger (the plugin's 'carica prodotti' button), leaving little to inference.

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