scan_slaves

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the payload shape (identity, current state, port links), which matters because there is no output schema, but it omits whether a bus scan is intrusive, how long it takes, or what happens to slave states during scanning.

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?

One front-loaded sentence: action first, returned fields second. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 zero-arg tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover the returned field categories, but it leaves out side effects/latency and any guidance on follow-up tools, which are the main remaining gaps an agent would care about.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies; nothing about parameters needs explaining and the description correctly makes no parameter claims.

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+resource (scan the EtherCAT bus, list slave devices) plus a statement of what is returned. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_slave_info/get_topology by describing discovery of all connected slaves, but never names those siblings 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: the word 'Scan' suggests a discovery step before targeted reads like get_slave_info or read_sdo. There is no explicit when-to-use, no condition for preferring get_topology, and no prerequisites (e.g., bus must be in a safe state).

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