lw_ble_scan

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral traits: the call is asynchronous, returns a handle immediately, self-terminates within timeout_s, and the scan is passive. It omits permissions/auth requirements and any rate-limit or concurrency caveats, which is a modest gap for a radio-level operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return contract, then the lifecycle bound, then the follow-up tools. No filler; every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists so return-value detail is not required, and the async handle is mentioned anyway. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage, the unexplained name_filter and service_uuid parameters leave the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 supply all parameter meaning. It explains timeout_s well (bounded 1–60) but leaves name_filter and service_uuid entirely unexplained, so two of three parameters remain opaque. Partial compensation only.

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 ('kick off') and resource ('passive BLE discovery sweep'), and immediately clarifies the async return contract (a scan handle). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like lw_ble_scan_poll and lw_ble_scan_stop, which it names as the follow-up/abort paths.

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?

Routes the agent explicitly to lw_ble_scan_poll for results and lw_ble_scan_stop for early abort, which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not state when this tool should be avoided in favor of a non-scanning alternative (e.g., lw_ble_scan_list), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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