list_bluetooth_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that both paired and nearby devices are returned, but says nothing about whether a scan is triggered, latency, or required permissions.

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 well-formed sentence with zero waste, and the key scope qualifier ('paired and nearby') is front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with strong annotations, this is nearly complete. A note on scanning behavior or expected output would make it fully sufficient, but nothing essential is missing 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?

With zero parameters there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter detail because the schema is empty.

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 and resource ('List ... bluetooth devices') and adds meaningful scope ('paired and nearby'), which differentiates it from get_bluetooth_status and connect_bluetooth. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 use case is implied—listing devices before connecting—but there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance and no reference to alternatives like get_bluetooth_status. An agent can infer the purpose but is given no disambiguation rule.

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