lan_discover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool performs simultaneous WiFi/LAN and Bluetooth scans and returns a discovery report with new, updated, and lost devices. However, it omits any mention of permissions, network impact, or other side effects, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary purpose. The following two sentences add essential details about scanning behavior and output. No wasted words, and the structure is clear.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description does mention key output characteristics. However, it lacks parameter guidance, prerequisites, and workflow context relative to sibling tools. For a tool with 3 undocumented params and no annotations, this level of completeness is only minimal.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters (scan_type, network_range, timeout_seconds). It only indirectly hints that scanning covers 'WiFi/LAN and Bluetooth LE,' which may correspond to 'all' in scan_type, but it does not clarify parameter options or effects. This is a significant gap given the low coverage.

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 discovers devices on the local network and Bluetooth, with a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('devices on local network and Bluetooth'). It also differentiates from siblings like lan_device_list and lan_device_control by emphasizing the scanning and reporting of new/updated/lost 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 provides clear context: it scans WiFi/LAN and Bluetooth LE simultaneously, which implies appropriate scenarios for use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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