scan_large

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the filter threshold, sorting order, and result cap, which are useful. However, it does not clarify whether the scan is recursive or only top-level, what file types are included, or how errors/permission issues are handled. These are meaningful ambiguities for a directory 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?

A single sentence conveys the core behavior with no filler. The filter, sort direction, and result count are all included in a compact and readable structure. Every word 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?

The presence of an output schema means return value details are covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks important contextual details such as whether subdirectories are scanned recursively, and it gives no guidance on when to prefer sibling scan tools. For a tool that does one focused task, this is adequate but not 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 100%, so the schema already documents dir, top_n, and min_mb. The description adds a little value by tying min_mb and top_n into the behavior (filter and limit), but it does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('列出' / list) and a specific resource (files in a directory larger than min_mb MB), and adds distinguishing behavior: sort by size descending and return top_n. This clearly separates it from sibling scan tools such as scan_duplicates, scan_by_ext, and scan_old.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you need to find the largest files in a directory. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when not to use it, such as when scanning for duplicates, extensions, or old files. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the routing to the agent's inference.

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