find_bluetooth_attacks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only lists capabilities but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output format is. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail but could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., bullets) for clarity. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a functional overview but lacks details about return values, error handling, parameter combinations, or prerequisites. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use without additional inference.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds a high-level overview but no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool is for Bluetooth attack technique lookup, specifying search dimensions (CVE, protocol, severity, category) and actions (get commands, assess feasibility). It distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_bluetooth and analyze_ble by focusing on attack technique lookup rather than scanning or 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?

The description implies usage for lookup and assessment but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_bluetooth or lookup_wireless_cve. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided, leaving the agent to infer.

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