start_bluetooth_pairing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states that it starts bt-timedpair and puts the device into pairing mode. It does not disclose side effects, reversibility, timeout behavior, prerequisites (e.g., Bluetooth power state), or whether it is idempotent. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the implementation detail (bt-timedpair) is secondary but still relevant. Perfectly concise.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains what it does but omits important context such as whether the pairing mode is temporary, whether it requires Bluetooth to be powered on, or how to revert. Given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter information, and the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, so nothing is missing.

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 clearly states the specific action (put into Bluetooth discoverable pairing mode) and the mechanism (starts bt-timedpair). The verb and resource are unambiguous, and it naturally distinguishes from other start_* tools by its Bluetooth-specific scope.

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 description provides context (so a phone or laptop can pair) but does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like set_bluetooth_power or get_bluetooth_status, nor does it state when not to use it. The purpose is clear, but no routing guidance is given.

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