scan_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description mentions '补元数据并触发歌词补全' (supplement metadata and trigger lyric completion), implying a mutating operation that modifies the library. However, it does not disclose what exactly gets changed, whether it's destructive, whether network access is required for lyric fetching, or what happens to existing metadata.

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, compact sentence that wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the two core actions (scan + metadata + lyrics). Not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing depth described in other dimensions.

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 1-param mutating tool with no annotations, no schema coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the return value/output format (output schema exists but description could add context), what metadata fields are supplemented, the side effects of the scan, or failure modes. The description would benefit from stating what kind of directory, what metadata is added, and what the scan does to existing entries.

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%, and the single required param 'dir' is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not explain what 'dir' should be (a filesystem path? a library identifier?), what format, or what constraints apply. Given 0% coverage, the description must compensate but provides no parameter details whatsoever.

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 the verb (扫描/san) and resource (本地音频目录/local audio directory) with clear actions: supplement metadata and trigger lyric completion. It distinguishes from siblings like search_songs and query_library, which are query-oriented, while scan_library is a write/scan operation on a directory.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. The description implies it's for scanning/batch operations, but does not clarify when one would choose scan_library over query_library or search_songs, nor state what prerequisites or consequences apply.

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