scan_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that a scan lasts for a configurable timeout and returns discovered addresses, names, and signal strength, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly say that the scan is read-only, does not connect to devices, or what happens when no devices are found. For a benign scan tool this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no fluff or repetition beyond the acceptable restatement of parameter type compatibility.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it scans, how long it scans, and what it returns. It could also mention empty-result behavior or that it is a one-shot discovery scan, but given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates for the single parameter: timeout is explained as scan duration in seconds, with a default of 10.0 and support for both int and float. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema property title, type, and default.

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 and resource: 'Scan for nearby Nordic Thingy:52 devices.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling read/connect/control tools, and the returns line further specifies what the tool produces. This is unambiguous and searchable.

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 makes the core use case clear: discover nearby Thingy:52 devices. Since there is no alternative scanning tool among the siblings, the context is sufficient. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, mention prerequisites like available Bluetooth, or describe the workflow of scanning before connecting. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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