flipper_read_app_reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the tool retrieves data from the SD card (specifically app scan reports) and that firmware cannot provide this data. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral insight.

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?

The description is two short sentences, with the action verb and resource clearly stated first. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or extraneous information.

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 simple list tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the source (SD card) and type of data (BLE/WiFi scan reports). It does not describe the output format (e.g., file names or paths) but is otherwise adequate given the low complexity.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (port and pattern). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema. Since schema coverage is moderate, the description does not compensate, staying at baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('List scan output that apps have saved to the SD card') and specifies the resource type (BLE/WiFi reports). It distinguishes from siblings by noting this is the honest route to such data, unlike firmware-based methods.

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 description implies when to use this tool (for BLE and WiFi data not available via firmware) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Usage context is hinted but not fully delineated.

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