ism_start_scanning

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the critical behavioral trait: exclusive control of the RTL-SDR until ism_stop_scanning, implying a locking side effect and a required teardown. It leaves gaps on whether the call returns immediately versus running asynchronously and how results surface (presumably via ism_get_devices), which keeps it from a 5.

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: the action and bands come first, followed by the resource-lock constraint. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 stateful, resource-locking scanner with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and teardown but omits whether scanning is blocking, whether data accumulates in the background, and how to retrieve findings. The sibling ism_get_devices makes retrieval inferable, but the definition doesn't state it, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with both frequencies and hop_interval documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the band names (433/315/868/915 MHz) that map loosely to the default frequency list and says nothing extra about hop_interval semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Start scanning ISM bands for devices') plus concrete bands and the underlying tool (rtl_433), which separates it from generic siblings like sdr_set_frequency. It doesn't explicitly contrast with spectrum_scan or spectrum_analyze, so an agent must infer the ISM-device-vs-spectrum distinction.

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 lifecycle is clear: call this to begin, and the RTL-SDR is held 'until ism_stop_scanning,' which tells the agent it must eventually stop and that the resource is unavailable meanwhile. There are no explicit exclusions or comparisons against spectrum_scan, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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