scan_rings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a discovery operation returning a list (implying a read-only, non-destructive nature), but says nothing about whether the call blocks for the scan duration, required BLE permissions/pairing state, or environment prerequisites.

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 scope, with zero filler. Every clause carries information, even if the return-value sentence is partially redundant with the output schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-field enumeration is largely redundant, and the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, key operational context (blocking behavior, permissions, timeout effect) is missing for what is an environment-interacting discovery tool.

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 single parameter timeout_seconds is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no guidance on what the value controls, its unit interpretation, or how it affects scan behavior. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Scans for nearby smart rings over Bluetooth Low Energy'), which is unambiguous and distinct from data-retrieval siblings like get_ring_status or get_daily_activity. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with get_ring_status, the closest sibling, leaving the boundary to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The agent must infer that this is the discovery step used before other ring operations, and nothing tells it how this differs from get_ring_status or when a scan is preferable.

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