lw_ble_scan_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the key trait that results are not filtered by completion state, but it says nothing about ordering, result limits, or whether the list is a snapshot, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 tight sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded. The only minor cost is the idiosyncratic term 'discovery sweep' instead of 'scan', which briefly risks confusion with the lw_ble_discover sibling.

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?

The tool is a no-parameter read/list with a declared output schema, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers what the tool returns and that it is unfiltered, which is sufficient for an agent to call it; only minor terminology alignment is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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 (Show/list) and resource (every discovery sweep = BLE scan), and adds the scope detail 'finished or not'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as lw_ble_scan, lw_ble_scan_poll, or lw_ble_scan_stop, so it falls short of a 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the exhaustive-enumeration tool for sweeps because it claims to return all of them regardless of state. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer lw_ble_scan_poll instead, and no prerequisites.

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