discover_wireless_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. It does not say whether the scan is blocking or how long it runs, whether BLE/mDNS require host permissions or an enabled radio, or whether results are cached versus live — all material for a zero-argument discovery action.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause names a distinct transport/protocol target and nothing is redundant.

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 no explanation, and there are no parameters to document. What is missing is the operational context: scan duration/blocking behavior, permission requirements, and how this differs from discover_devices — meaningful gaps for a discovery primitive in a large sibling set.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the enumerated protocols in the description are a bonus rather than a necessity.

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?

Specific verb ("Discover") plus an enumerated set of resources: BLE/mDNS services, wireless Android ADB, and paired iOS mobdev2 services. The agent knows exactly what classes of device/transport this covers. It loses the top score because it never distinguishes itself from the near-identically named sibling discover_devices, leaving the boundary ambiguous.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus discover_devices, list_known_devices, or remember_discovery, and no prerequisites (e.g. that pairing must happen afterward). The agent must infer the workflow position entirely from the tool name.

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