ledfx_find_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. However, it only says 'trigger network device discovery' without disclosing side effects (e.g., network traffic, blocking behavior, duration). It lacks detail on what happens after triggering.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the action and target. No unnecessary words, and the verb 'Trigger' is front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but could be more complete by indicating the result (e.g., whether discovered devices appear in list_devices). It lacks outcome details.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics but mentions scope (network, LED devices). It adds minimal value beyond schema, which is already complete.

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 (trigger network device discovery) and the resource (new LED devices), with examples like WLED. It distinguishes from siblings like ledfx_list_devices and ledfx_get_device, which handle already-discovered devices.

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 indicates when to use this tool (to find new devices), but does not provide explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance or compare alternatives like ledfx_list_devices. It implies usage for initial discovery vs. listing known devices.

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