bigbang_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It usefully states the operation is 'non-destructively' and that it 'never auto-canonicalizes ambiguous contracts,' which are meaningful behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose potential errors, prerequisites, or return behavior beyond what an output schema would provide.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, including the non-destructive qualifier and the canonicalization caveat.

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 one-parameter scan tool, the core behavior is stated, and the output schema exists to explain return values. However, the description is missing practical context such as when to use this tool, how to interpret 'ambiguous contracts,' and what constraints apply to the roots. This leaves an agent with some uncertainty about correct invocation.

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 compensate for parameter documentation, but it does not. It only mentions 'configured filesystem roots,' which loosely maps to the 'roots' parameter, but it does not clarify string formats, expected paths, or how ambiguous roots are handled. This is minimal added meaning beyond the property name and type.

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 a specific action and resource: 'non-destructively inventory configured filesystem roots.' It goes beyond the tool name by explaining what is scanned and adding a safety qualifier. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools by name or scenario.

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 the tool is used for scanning filesystem roots, but it provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. There are many sibling tools, and this description does not help route an agent among them.

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