system_scan_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose something useful: results merge a live external catalog with local journal data, and the journal half only appears 'if ever visited'. It does not mention network dependency, behavior for unknown/unvisited systems, or whether the EDSM call is live or cached.

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 lead line is front-loaded and the Community/You split is an effective structure for a two-source tool. The telegraphic style ('+ type break-down', 'visits/FSS/scans/mapped') is dense but readable; a little more connective text would help without bloating it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description adequately frames the two data sources. Gaps remain around the undocumented journal_dir parameter and the unvisited/unknown-system case, which matter for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'your log' means the journal, which loosely relates to journal_dir, but it never explains what journal_dir does, what the default (null) means, or what form system_name should take.

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 question — how deeply ONE system has been scanned — and names both data sources (live EDSM bodies catalog and the commander's journal). It is clearly not a search or lookup tool like edsm_system_info or spansh_search_bodies, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 implied: reach for this when you want scan coverage for a single known system rather than a search. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of which sibling to use for multi-system or proximity queries.

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