probe_device

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

With no annotations, the description takes the full burden of behavior. It discloses the operation (connect, list), the expected pattern (characteristics ending in ff01/ff02/ff03), and a limitation (shared layout across incompatible protocols). It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but the core behavioral trait—that probing is not driver identification—is clearly flagged.

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 main purpose is the first sentence, and the second paragraph is dense but relevant usage and caveat context. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage context, expected output (GATT services/characteristics), and a caution about the tool's limitations. Missing details, such as timeout semantics and failure handling, are minor for this simple tool and there is no output schema demanding more.

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 schema gives only field titles—'Address' and 'Timeout'—so the description must compensate. It clarifies address as a candidate BLE address from scan_printers, which helps, but it never explains what timeout controls or what format address should take; timeout is entirely unaddressed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Connect to a BLE device and list its GATT services/characteristics.' It also clearly situates the tool in a workflow (confirming a candidate address from scan_printers before adding a printer), which differentiates it from siblings like scan_printers and add_printer.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: to confirm a candidate address found via scan_printers is a supported printer before adding it. It also provides an exclusion—the GATT layout alone does not determine the driver, so a test print is still needed—steering agents away from over-reliance. This is precise, alternative-aware guidance.

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