list_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it scans, but discloses nothing about side effects (radio activation), permission requirements, how long the scan blocks, or what distinguishes a 'known' from a newly discovered device. This is a significant gap for an operation with environmental side effects.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why other dimensions are under-specified.

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 return values need not be described, but for a two-parameter discovery tool with no annotations the description omits prerequisites, scan behavior, and parameter meaning. It is too thin for the agent to invoke confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate, yet it mentions neither 'prefix' (name filtering) nor 'timeout' (scan duration). The scanning concept loosely relates to timeout but no semantics, units, or filtering behavior are conveyed, leaving both parameters opaque.

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 pair (扫描/列出, scan/list) and resource (附近的心跳元力 BLE 设备), so the agent knows this is the device-discovery entry point among siblings like connect_device and get_device_status. It is not explicitly contrasted with any sibling, and '已知的' (known) is slightly ambiguous for a scan operation, keeping it below 5.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus the alternatives: it does not say this is the prerequisite step before connect_device, nor does it mention Bluetooth permissions, adapter state, or that results feed later connect/set_* calls. Usage is only implied by the word 'scan'.

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