discover_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that adapter dependency and OS access errors are reported per transport without stopping other scans, which is important failure semantics. However, it does not state whether discovery is read-only, what permissions are needed, or whether it has side effects.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and uses the second sentence efficiently for transport restriction and error behavior. There is no redundant or empty phrasing.

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 return values need not be explained. The single optional parameter is semantically covered, and partial-failure behavior is disclosed. The main remaining gap is lack of tool-selection guidance against similar discovery/list siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the transports parameter optionally restricts scanning and by listing valid transport values (usb, hid, serial, bluetooth, adb, ios, network), adding meaning beyond the bare anyOf schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource — discovering connected devices — and enumerates the transport types it covers (USB, serial, BLE, ADB, iOS). It is clear in isolation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling discover_wireless_devices or list_known_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as discover_wireless_devices, list_known_devices, or start_device_monitor. The only usage-like detail is the optional transport restriction, which is parameter behavior rather than tool-selection guidance.

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