ble_connect

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values (connection_id, device identity, spec status), notes platform-specific behavior for the pair parameter (not on macOS), and outlines the follow-up steps after connecting. This is good transparency for the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured: starts with the core purpose and return values, then lists numbered steps for post-connect actions. It is concise enough to convey the necessary information without excessive verbosity, though the step-by-step instructions could be slightly more compact.

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's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main aspects: what it does, what it returns, and what to do after. It lacks information about error handling or invalid addresses, but for a connection tool this is reasonably complete with the provided context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions address and pair implicitly but provides no extra details about the parameters (e.g., format of address, default timeout behavior).

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's purpose: 'Connect to a BLE peripheral by address.' It specifies the action (connect), the resource (BLE peripheral), and the key input (address). It also distinguishes from siblings like ble_disconnect, ble_connection_status, etc.

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 a detailed post-connect workflow (check spec, attach, check plugin) but does not explicitly differentiate when to use ble_connect vs other connection-related tools like ble_scan_start or ble_disconnect. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated with alternatives.

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