ble_scan_get_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-blocking nature and both return values (devices and scan active status). It lacks details on error handling or what happens with invalid scan_id, but covers core behavior.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey key attributes: non-blocking, return values, and usage purpose. No unnecessary words, and the most important info 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains what is returned (devices and scan active) but is vague about the structure of devices. For an agent to parse the response, more detail on the output format would be helpful. Adequate but not thorough.

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 single parameter scan_id is fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates 'The scan_id from ble.scan_start' without adding new meaning, so it does not improve on the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, earning baseline 3.

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 returns discovered devices and scan status, and specifies it is non-blocking. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ble_scan_start and ble_scan_stop by focusing on retrieving results.

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 advises calling this to check progress or decide whether to stop early, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude other uses but gives sufficient guidance relative to the scan lifecycle.

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