ble_scans_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool lists scans and specifies the returned data fields (status, filters, timestamps, device count). This is adequate for a read-only operation with no side effects, though it could mention if results are ordered or limited.

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 long with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the action and output, and the second provides a practical use case. It is well-structured and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and output fields. It would benefit from specifying the return format (e.g., array of objects), but it is largely complete for a list tool.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents all input expectations. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly avoids redundancy. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 'List all tracked scans with their status, filters, timestamps, and device count,' providing a specific verb and resource along with output fields. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like ble_scan_start and ble_scan_stop by focusing on listing existing scans.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Useful for recovering scan IDs after context loss.' This implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool.

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