projector_scan

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about the nmap dependency and the port-5555 probing strategy, but omits scan duration, network-permission requirements, and how candidates are identified—real gaps for a network scan.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the implementation detail follows as supporting context.

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?

There's no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a scan returns (IP addresses, device names, counts, or empty results). It never describes the result shape or failure modes, leaving a meaningful hole for a discovery 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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; the description correctly implies the scan target is implicit (the local network, not a caller-supplied range).

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?

Specific verb plus resource: scans the local network for Android devices that might be projectors, and names the discovery mechanism (nmap on port 5555). It clearly differs from the projector_* siblings, which act on an already-known projector, though it doesn't say so explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step that precedes projector_setup/connect, but the description never states when to run it, whether it should precede setup, or what to do if multiple candidates are found.

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