nest_intake_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: idempotency ('a file already staged is not re-staged'), non-destructiveness ('nothing is moved until nest_intake_file'), and default drop locations. It does not mention return values or how the review queue is represented, but the most critical behavioral traits are 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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action in the first sentence and packs idempotency, non-destructiveness, and parameter context into the second. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose, safety properties, and folder override. However, the missing explanation of `app_id` and the vague 'tracks'/'review queue' leave some ambiguity. It is adequate but has clear gaps that prevent it from being fully complete.

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 explain parameters. It explains `folder` as overriding default drop dirs, adding meaningful context. However, the required `app_id` parameter is completely unexplained, which is a significant gap since it is needed to invoke the tool successfully.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Scan drop zone(s), classify new files by filename into tracks, and stage a review queue.' It uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('drop zone(s)'), and distinguishes itself from the related nest_intake_file by clarifying that nothing is moved until that sibling tool is called.

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 implies usage context: it is the initial step before nest_intake_file, and it is idempotent so safe to re-run. It also explains when to use the `folder` parameter (to override defaults). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative scanning tools like nest_scan.

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