cyd_bt_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the scan runs for a given number of seconds and that results are not immediate, requiring a separate poll to cyd_bt_status. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or state changes (e.g., whether the scan clears previous results), which is a gap for a machine-specific action.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and duration, then immediately provides the polling instruction. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately terse for a simple parameter.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main purpose and the polling step, but it lacks details like what constitutes a successful scan, how to interpret results from cyd_bt_status, or any error states. Given the simplicity, it's mostly complete, but an agent has to infer the exact outcome of the scan.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter is 'seconds' with a default of 10 and a maximum of 30. The description states 'for the given seconds,' which directly explains the parameter's purpose, adding value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain what happens if seconds exceeds the max or if a lower value is better for responsiveness, so it's adequate but not thorough.

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 action: 'Search for Bluetooth Classic keyboards in pairing mode for the given seconds.' It specifies the resource (Bluetooth Classic keyboards) and the condition (pairing mode), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like cyd_bt_connect and cyd_bt_status by focusing on the scan action.

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 context: run this scan when you need to find keyboards in pairing mode, then poll cyd_bt_status for results. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the instruction to poll cyd_bt_status indicates a sequence, which is clear enough for an agent.

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