reelier_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that native file/shell actions are reported as skipped and never fabricated, which is a key behavioral trait. Additional details like side effects or auth needs are absent but acceptable for a scan tool.

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 plus a 'USE WHEN' clause, all front-loaded and free of fluff. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and is a straightforward scanner, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, and usage guidance. It explains return values (transcript paths) and even suggests the next step (feed to reelier_from_session).

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'dir'. The description adds value by noting the default value (~/.claude/projects) and clarifying the context of scanning agent session transcripts, going beyond the schema's basic description.

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 discovers replayable workflows in session history and returns transcript paths. It specifies the default directory and explicitly names a sibling tool (reelier_from_session) for follow-up, distinguishing its purpose.

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 includes an explicit 'USE WHEN' statement: deciding which past work to compile into a replayable skill. It also clarifies that only MCP/HTTP tool-call sequences are replayable, guiding proper use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use.

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