discover_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states the tool 'transmits nothing' and only receives beacons, which is important safety and side-effect information. However, it does not explain the behavior or purpose of the timeout parameter, which is the tool's only configuration.

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 compact and well-structured: the core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, the passive behavior is clarified in the second, and the practical use cases are given in the third. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundant wording.

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 and has an output schema, so return values are already covered. However, the sole parameter 'timeout' is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving a meaningful gap in what the agent needs to know to invoke the tool correctly. The use cases help, but this missing parameter semantics makes it incomplete.

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 schema provides only the name 'timeout' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions the timeout parameter at all, so an agent cannot know what it controls, what its units are, or what happens if it is null. This is a critical gap because it is the only parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('listen'), a precise resource ('Tuya devices broadcasting on the local network'), and a distinctly passive mechanism ('it only receives beacons'). This differentiates it clearly from sibling tools like list_devices, which imply a registry query rather than active network discovery.

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 concrete use cases: finding a device whose IP changed, or discovering devices missing from the registry. It does not explicitly name an alternative or say when not to use it, but the context strongly implies this is the discovery tool as opposed to the registry-based list_devices.

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