ble_mtu

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

Describes return value (negotiated MTU) and side effect (calculation hint). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not mention prerequisites like active connection, which is a minor 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second adds practical usage. No fluff, efficient.

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?

Covers purpose and usage adequately for a simple read tool, but lacks specification on return format (e.g., integer) and parameter format, leaving gaps without an output schema.

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 0%. Description does not explain the 'connection_id' parameter beyond mentioning 'for a connection'. No format or source guidance is given, requiring the agent to infer.

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?

Clearly states it returns the negotiated MTU for a connection, explains the effective payload size calculation, and mentions usefulness for large writes. This distinguishes it from siblings like ble_read or ble_write.

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?

Implicitly guides use for chunk size determination before large writes. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives, but context is clear.

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