Scan document catalog

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is neither read-only nor destructive. The description adds that it 'stores metadata only', clarifying it writes, but does not elaborate on potential side effects, performance impact, or configuration requirements. This adds some value beyond annotations but leaves gaps.

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 sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core functionality without excess.

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's simplicity (no parameters, clear purpose), the description is mostly complete. It explains what is scanned and the outcome (metadata storage). However, it could mention if the scan is incremental or full, and how repositories are configured. Still, it meets the needs for a low-complexity tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description does not need to provide parameter-level details, and it appropriately avoids missing information. Baseline score for 0 parameters is 4.

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 scans configured local repositories and the journal, storing only metadata. The verb 'Scan' and resource 'configured local repositories and journal' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like catalog_query (querying) and catalog_record_generated/printed (record creation), which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., catalog_query). The description lacks explicit context for when a scan is appropriate or when to prefer other operations.

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