scanner_scanfile_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description usefully discloses the returned fields (path, size, point count, downloaded flag). It says nothing about behavior on an invalid or missing scan_file_id, nor about permissions beyond openWorldHint.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead and the returned fields follow immediately.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, listing the return fields gets close, but an agent still lacks guidance on sourcing scan_file_id and on failure behavior.

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 single required parameter scan_file_id is never mentioned in the description — no hint as to what an ID looks like or where to obtain one (presumably from scanner_scans). The description only describes outputs, not the input, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get metadata for one point-cloud file') and enumerates exactly which fields come back, making it distinguishable from siblings like scanner_download_scanfile. It does not explicitly name siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 mention of 'whether it has been downloaded' hints at the natural check-before-download workflow, but the description never states when to use this versus scanner_download_scanfile or scanner_status. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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