scan_hardware_bridges

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the disclosure burden. It helpfully states the concrete return artifacts (FTDI URLs like 'ftdi://ftdi:232h/1' and /dev/i2c-*, /dev/spidev*, /dev/gpiochip* nodes), which signals a read-only enumeration. However, it omits whether the scan enumerates from sysfs or actively probes hardware, whether root/udev permissions are needed to see /dev nodes, and what happens when nothing is 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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first establishes scope and supported chips, the second lists return formats. Purpose is front-loaded and the return examples are compact rather than verbose.

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 the description is not obligated to explain return values, yet it still enumerates the key ones, which is a bonus for a discovery tool. The remaining gap is environmental context (driver/permission prerequisites, empty-result behavior) rather than missing core information.

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?

The input schema declares zero parameters (100% coverage), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the text confuses or overstates the argument surface.

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 uses a specific verb ("Discover") with a concrete resource: connected USB-to-GPIO/I2C/SPI bridges, naming the exact chip families (FT232H, FT2232H, CH341) and Linux bus device classes. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names distinguishing boundaries against siblings like sigrok_scan_devices or list_serial_ports, so an agent must infer the split.

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: an agent can reason that this is a discovery step preceding ftdi_* or serial calls, and that it covers a broader device set than list_serial_ports. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of the overlapping sigrok_scan_devices / adb_list_devices tools, and no prerequisites such as driver or udev requirements.

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