touchlink_scan

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the scan takes about 10 seconds and that results are not returned directly but must be fetched via a follow-up call. It does not discuss side effects or failure behavior, but the key operational traits are covered.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action, includes the only timing detail that matters, and ends with the required next step.

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 param-free tool with no annotations, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, how long it takes, and what to do next. Since an output schema exists, not detailing the return value is acceptable.

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?

Input schema has no properties and parameter count is 0, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly focuses on behavior instead.

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 action ('Start a Touchlink scan'), a target resource ('nearby Zigbee devices'), and clearly differentiates it from get_touchlink_results by positioning this as the initiation step and the other as retrieval. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context by telling the agent to call get_touchlink_results after scanning to see discovered devices. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or contrast it with touchlink_identify/touchlink_reset, but the intended workflow is obvious for a zero-parameter scan action.

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