alexa_list_bluetooth

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: the returned text is third-party authored and untrusted, and must be treated as data rather than instructions — an injection-safety disclosure the annotations do not convey.

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 sentences, no filler, with the functional scope front-loaded and the safety caveat following it. Every clause carries information.

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, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it enumerates the returned facets (paired devices, connection state, streaming status) and adds the untrusted-content handling rule. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the input level.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and a precise resource (Bluetooth devices paired with each Alexa device), and further specifies the returned facets: pairing, connection state, and whether the Echo is streaming. It is readily distinguishable from siblings like alexa_list_devices or alexa_get_now_playing.

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 makes the tool's scope evident (Bluetooth pairing/streaming status), so intended usage is implied, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus alexa_list_devices, alexa_get_now_playing, or alexa_session_status, nor any preconditions. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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