Scan a library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value beyond them: the operation is asynchronous ("Queue a scan") rather than immediate, and it has the side effect of importing new assets. It omits how to observe progress or completion, which keeps it from a 5.

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 content is short and front-loaded: the verb+resource line is followed immediately by the effect, then operation metadata. The only waste is the opening line repeating the tool title verbatim, which costs a small amount of duplication.

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, no-output-schema trigger, the description covers the essential contract: what is scanned, that it is queued, and that it imports new assets. Annotations cover the mutation/idempotency profile. Missing only follow-up guidance on tracking the queued job, which is a minor gap for this complexity level.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100% and a single required uuid parameter, the schema already carries the parameter contract, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about what the id refers to (an external library identifier) or what happens if the id is not an external library.

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 and resource ("Scan a library") and then explains the effect: queue a scan for the external library to find and import new assets. An agent can tell this is a scan/import trigger rather than a metadata read. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the nearby siblings (get_library, update_library, get_library_statistics), 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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: the mention of "external library" scopes the tool to external libraries, and "find and import new assets" hints at the post-upload rescan scenario. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g., admin rights), and no named alternative such as the full library rescan or job-queue endpoints.

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