fleet_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this operation is non-invasive ('without connecting to or registering them') and implies a read-only scanning action. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., network traffic), timeouts, or permissions, but the core safety trait is well conveyed.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that deliver the core purpose, the key behavioral distinction, and usage guidance. No superfluous words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and safety context. However, with no parameter explanations and no annotation support, the agent may struggle to construct the right filter arguments. The description is adequate for understanding 'why' but lacks 'how' for parameters.

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 compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not. The phrase 'matching a filter' is vague and does not explain specific parameters like 'addresses', 'name_pattern', or 'service_uuids'. Only the schema names and defaults are given, leaving the agent to infer what each parameter does.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Discover devices matching a filter, without connecting to or registering them.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly contrasts with fleet_register, making it distinct from siblings.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to see what's out there before fleet_register.' This names the alternative (fleet_register) and indicates when to use it (before registering). It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('without connecting to or registering'), providing a clear when-not-to-use signal.

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