Start a background log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses background execution, return values, termination triggers (duration, log_stop, prolonged Bluetooth loss), client-disconnect persistence, and concurrency BUSY behavior. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before invoking it.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then lifecycle, then constraints. Every sentence adds operational value; there is no repetition or filler.

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 background logging tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is started, what is returned, how it ends, concurrency limits, and sibling follow-up tools. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines each parameter including defaults and examples; the description adds only high-level lifecycle context for duration and reconnect_for. It does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Start logging live readings...') and names output formats, background execution, and return values (job id and file). It also distinguishes this tool from log_status and log_stop by defining their roles in the lifecycle.

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 gives clear lifecycle guidance: follow with log_status, end with log_stop, one log at a time, and other meter tools return BUSY while active. It also states termination conditions. It does not explicitly say when to use this instead of live/read for one-off readings, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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