flipper_scan_nearby

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: how uncheckable sources are reported (NOT CHECKED, not 'nothing found'), the specific case of BLE/WiFi, and the need to read `attempted` and `reason` fields. This goes well beyond annotations.

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 sentences plus one sentence of important caveats. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, then critical usage notes. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return format (structured results plus plain-language summary) and key fields (`attempted`, `reason`). It addresses edge cases (uncheckable sources) and interpretation guidance. Fully complete for the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add information about the three parameters (port, sources, frequencies) beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Answer what is I around me?' by sweeping all supported sensors, returning structured results and a plain-language summary. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like flipper_nfc or flipper_i2c_scan by being a comprehensive scan.

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 gives critical usage guidance: sources that cannot be run are reported as NOT CHECKED with a reason, and BLE/WiFi cannot be scanned. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are more specific, implying when to use this tool vs. a dedicated one.

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