ble_spec_attach

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

The description discloses that the attachment is 'in-memory only' (non-persistent) and that the spec becomes available via ble.spec.get for the connection duration. This adds behavioral context beyond what annotations would provide, though no annotations are present.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the core function, the second provides actionable next steps. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and post-usage guidance. It lacks details on error handling or behavior when inputs are invalid, but remains fairly complete for common use.

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 already describes spec_id with its source. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. With schema coverage at 50% (connection_id lacks description), the description does not compensate or clarify the parameters further, so a baseline score 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 it attaches a registered spec to a connection session, distinguishing it from siblings like ble_spec_register or ble_spec_get. It uses specific verbs and resource: 'attach', 'spec', 'connection session'.

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 clear post-usage steps (check ble.plugin.list and present options), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives. It gives good context for the agent's workflow.

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