Connect BLE beacon bus

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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds some behavioral context by listing what the scaffold creates (sanitized beacon rows, zone maps, etc.). However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or integration behavior beyond the creation act. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and lists key components. It is concise and avoids fluff, though the long list of components makes it slightly dense. It earns its place but could benefit from a short preface or examples.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain how the scaffold integrates with the project, what 'sanitized beacon rows' means, whether existing nodes are modified, or what the expected outcome is beyond a vague scaffold. An agent would likely need to inspect parameter descriptions or ask for more details.

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 only 20% (name and parent_path), so the description must compensate. It mentions concepts like 'smoothing policy' and 'adapter source' that loosely map to parameters (smoothing_window_sec, adapter_url/adapter_mode), but it does not systematically explain each parameter's purpose or relationships. Partial compensation, but gaps remain for many of the 10 parameters.

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+resource: 'Create a BLE beacon proximity scaffold' and lists concrete components (sanitized beacon rows, zone maps, smoothing policy, adapter source, device-privacy notes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect_serial_device_bus or create_geojson_feature_bus. The minor mismatch between 'connect' in the title and 'Create' in the description does not obscure the purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or that other tools (e.g., connect_websocket_control_bus) might be more appropriate for different bus types. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing the decision.

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