scan_printers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the prerequisite daemon, the need for pairing mode, and what to look for in results (device name patterns). It doesn't detail side effects or error behavior, but for a read-only scan the provided context is valuable and goes beyond a bare operation.

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 well-structured: purpose in the first sentence, usage guidance in the second paragraph, and prerequisite in the third. It is informative without being bloated, though the device-name-pattern list is slightly long.

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?

For a simple optional-parameter scan tool, the description covers the main points: what it does, how to prepare, and the runtime dependency. The missing timeout semantics is the main gap, but it is a minor one given the default value and the overall simplicity.

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 only parameter, timeout, is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The schema provides only title/type/default with zero description, and the tool description never mentions timeout, its unit, or its effect. Since schema coverage is effectively 0%, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Scan for nearby Bluetooth LE devices to find the printer's address.' This clearly distinguishes the tool as a BLE discovery/scan operation, not a management or configuration action, and it pairs well with the related get_daemon_info pointer.

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?

It gives actionable context: put the printer in pairing mode before scanning, and requires the LuckJingle print daemon to be running (referencing get_daemon_info). It stops short of explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the preconditions and steps are clear enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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