scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the call blocks for `timeout` seconds and that results are ordered strongest signal first, which is genuine behavioral value. However, it omits permission requirements, what happens if the adapter is off or the scan fails, and whether concurrent scans are allowed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its timing, followed by a return-format note. No filler, no redundancy.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the core contract is covered: what it does, how long it runs, how results are ordered, and how `manufacturer_data` is keyed. The missing piece is operational context (permissions, failure modes), which matters for a radio scan but is not severe.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% — the `timeout` property has no description at all — so the description must compensate, and it does by establishing that `timeout` is expressed in seconds and bounds the scan duration. The schema's default of 5 is left unmentioned but is visible in the schema itself.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a Bluetooth LE device scan, with the duration scoped by `timeout`. The word 'scan' plus 'bluetooth le' implicitly separates it from the cached-list siblings (`list_devices`, `classic_devices`), though it never names them explicitly.

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 implies usage — a scan that runs for `timeout` seconds — but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer `list_devices` or `classic_devices` over an active scan, and no note about prerequisites like an enabled adapter.

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