sigrok_scan_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load: it discloses that it shells out to sigrok-cli and enumerates supported driver families, which is useful context. It does not state what a failed/empty scan looks like, whether it can hang waiting on USB enumeration, or that it requires the sigrok-cli binary present.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target device classes, followed by the concrete driver coverage. No filler or restated title.

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?

A zero-parameter discovery tool with an output schema does not need return-value documentation, so the description is nearly sufficient as-is. The only meaningful gap is the missing prerequisite that sigrok-cli must be installed and the implied handoff to sigrok_capture_and_decode.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The driver list is informative context rather than parameter documentation.

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 (scan) plus the resource (connected Logic Analyzers, Oscilloscopes, Multimeters) and names the underlying mechanism (sigrok-cli). This clearly separates it from siblings like ble_scan_devices, scan_hardware_bridges, and sigrok_capture_and_decode.

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 purpose implies this is a discovery step preceding sigrok_capture_and_decode, but the description never states that relationship or when-not to use it. No alternatives or prerequisites (e.g. needing sigrok-cli installed) are named, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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