localsend_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately conveys the scan-and-list behavior, but it does not mention potential nuances like network permissions, how long the scan may take, or what happens when no devices are found. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and returned information with no filler. Every word contributes value.

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 discovery tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what it returns; the only minor gap is not stating that scanning can consume up to timeoutSeconds, though the schema already covers that.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents timeoutSeconds with default and max values. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline expectation.

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 ('Scan'), a precise resource ('local Wi-Fi/LAN'), and the exact output ('aliases, IPs, and models'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like localsend_send, localsend_status, localsend_history, and localsend_setup, all of which serve different purposes.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool to discover active LocalSend devices on the network. Though it does not explicitly say 'use before sending' or name when not to use it, the sibling names make the intended role obvious.

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