scan_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds specific behavioral context: it scans only allowed folders, returns results in recent modification order, and explicitly states it does not read file contents. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the operational scope and side-effect-free nature.

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 a single concise sentence with two clauses, front-loading the action and result. The 'does not read file contents' clarification is efficient and valuable. There is no redundant wording; every part earns its place.

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?

Given the presence of a complete output schema, well-described parameters, and annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers the key constraint (allowed folders), ordering, and the non-reading behavior. Minor gaps like explicit pagination details are already handled by the limit parameter.

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?

The input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but it also does not need to since the schema is fully self-documenting.

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 (scan), resource (allowed folders), and the result (document list sorted by recent modification). It explicitly clarifies it does not read file contents, distinguishing it from content-reading tools like read_document and search_documents.

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 its use for metadata-only listing by stating it does not read file contents, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide conditions for when to use this tool over siblings like search_documents or read_document. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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