lw_ble_scan_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does usefully disclose that buffered results are returned upon stopping rather than discarded. However, it says nothing about what happens if the scan is already stopped or unknown, whether the scan is removed from lw_ble_scan_list, or any error/permission behavior — significant gaps for a state-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action first and the return consequence second, with no filler or redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema excuses the description from explaining return values, and it does convey the core stop-and-collect behavior. But for a tool whose only parameter is undocumented and which has no annotations, the definition is thinner than the complexity warrants.

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 coverage is 0% for the single required 'scan_id' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions the identifier, its format, or where to obtain it (presumably from lw_ble_scan or lw_ble_scan_list), leaving the only argument undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb ('End') and resource ('a sweep'), plus the side effect of returning recorded results, so an agent can tell it terminates an active scan. The word 'sweep' loosely maps to the ble_scan family, and it does not explicitly contrast itself with lw_ble_scan_poll or lw_ble_scan_list, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

It implies a scan must already be running ('End a sweep now'), but states no explicit when-to-use condition, prerequisites, or alternative (e.g., polling vs. stopping). An agent must infer the workflow context from the sibling names alone.

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