Check Bluetooth remotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description correctly need not restate safety. It adds genuinely new behavioral context: the ADB (adb-setup) prerequisite and the meaning of a "stuck" remote including that advice on fixing it is returned. It stops short of describing pagination, timing, or failure modes when ADB is unavailable.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the state glossary is compact and readable. The state enumeration is somewhat long for a tool that also has an output schema, but each state's parenthetical adds diagnostic meaning rather than 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 zero-argument read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers what is returned (remote list plus per-remote state), the environment prerequisite (ADB), and how to interpret abnormal states. Only the absence of guidance on what to do next when a remote is disconnected keeps it from being fully complete.

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 is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is empty and fully covered, and the description correctly spends no space on arguments.

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 ("List") and resource ("the Shield's Bluetooth remotes") plus the key payload ("whether each works"). No sibling tool (get_status, get_now_playing, list_apps) covers Bluetooth remotes, so the scope 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 diagnostic intent is implied by "whether each works" and the state glossary, but the description never says when to reach for this tool versus get_status or what to do with the results. No exclusions or prerequisites beyond ADB are given, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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