led_scan

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

annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows no state is mutated, and the description is consistent with that. It adds no behavioral context of its own, though: scan duration, whether Bluetooth must be enabled (see toggle_bluetooth / get_bluetooth_status siblings), and whether results are transient are all unstated. The mild tension between "scan nearby" and openWorldHint=false is not explained.

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 four-word sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing superfluous and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn what a scan returns (device names, addresses, count) and how long it takes, and it says none of that. Combined with zero-parameter input and only light annotations, a single purpose sentence leaves the agent guessing about the result shape.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameters are mentioned, which is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Scan for BLE LED strips nearby") that an agent can act on immediately. It implicitly separates discovery from the control siblings (led_set_color, led_power, led_effect), but never says so explicitly, so the sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 scan-before-control workflow is only implied by the name and the presence of led_* control siblings; the description never states that this should be called first to discover devices, nor what to do if no strips are found. No when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite conditions are given.

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