ble_scan_devices

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scan duration window (1.0–20.0s) and the case-insensitive substring matching behavior, which is useful, but says nothing about adapter/permission prerequisites, whether the call blocks for the full timeout, or what happens when no devices are found.

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 purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block; nothing is padded or repeated. The docstring-style parameter list is slightly redundant in formatting but each line adds information not present in the 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are covered. However, for a hardware-dependent scan with no annotations, the description omits operating prerequisites (BLE adapter present/enabled, permissions) and blocking semantics, which are exactly what an agent needs to call it confidently.

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, and it largely does: timeout_sec is given a range and default, and name_filter is explained as a case-insensitive substring matched against either device name or address — details absent from the bare 'string'/'number' schema. Minor gaps remain on out-of-range timeout handling and filter-no-match behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Scan for nearby Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) devices') and even enumerates target device classes (ESP32, nRF52, sensors, beacons). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling BLE tools such as ble_inspect_gatt or ble_read_write_characteristic, so the agent must infer that this is the discovery entry point.

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: scanning is obviously the discovery step before GATT inspection, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given, and no sibling tool is named as the alternative. The only real guidance is that name_filter narrows results, which hints at the broad-scan-then-narrow pattern without stating it.

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