analyze_ble

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

No annotations present, so description must bear full burden. It only lists analysis modes but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether any state is modified. For a security analysis tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence efficiently communicates purpose and modes. No redundant words, information 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?

Despite detailed parameter schema, the description is too brief. It omits expected output, interpretation of results, and any usage context. With no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns for each mode.

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% with per-parameter descriptions that explain the mode-specific usage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'BLE security analysis' and enumerates four specific modes (GATT audit, pairing security, sniffing guide, privacy check). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_bluetooth and find_bluetooth_attacks which focus on discovery or attack finding, not security analysis.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The description only lists modes but does not compare to scan_bluetooth or other BLE tools. No cautionary notes or prerequisites provided.

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