bluetooth_scan

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

Annotations are already present (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds context about hardware necessity but does not elaborate on the destructive nature implied by the annotation. No contradiction, but limited additional insight.

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 concise sentences: first covers purpose and output, second adds a critical constraint. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the absence of output schema and parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's function and a key constraint. Minor missing details (e.g., 'type' definition) do not significantly reduce completeness for a simple scan 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?

No parameters are defined, so schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info and does not.

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 (scan), resource (nearby Bluetooth devices), and output details (device name, address, type, pairing status). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing local hardware requirement.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite (physical Bluetooth adapter) and rules out usage in cloud environments. It does not name alternative tools but provides clear context for when to use.

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