nest_intake_scan

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it is non-destructive and idempotent, which goes beyond the annotation by explaining that staging is not a move and that repeated scans are safe. It also ties behavior to the pipeline step (nest_intake_file). It does not disclose internal state changes (e.g., how the review queue is stored), but the key traits are well covered.

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?

Two sentences cover the entire behavior: the verb, resource, classification, staging, idempotency, non-destructive nature, the relation to nest_intake_file, and the folder override. The most important caveat (non-destructive) is front-loaded, and every word earns its place. No redundancy or filler.

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 scanning/staging tool with no output schema, the description lacks any mention of the return value or what the 'review queue' contains. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., what counts as a valid drop zone, whether app_id is needed for authorization). While it covers the core flow, an agent cannot anticipate what the tool returns or whether additional setup is needed.

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 add meaning. It explains the `folder` parameter by specifying it overrides default drop dirs and lists them, which is useful. However, it gives no explanation for the required `app_id` parameter, leaving agents to guess its purpose. With two parameters, a 3 is fair because one is well documented but the other is not.

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-resource pair ('Scan drop zone(s)'), defines the classifications ('classify new files by filename into tracks'), and names the follow-up action ('stage a review queue'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting non-destructive behavior and delegating the move operation to nest_intake_file, making its scope unambiguous.

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 this tool—before nest_intake_file—by stating 'nothing is moved until nest_intake_file' and explains the folder override. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like nest_scan or nest_intake_queue, and only implies the context rather than giving explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance. Still, the idempotent, non-destructive note gives agents a strong usage cue.

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