ble_trace_status

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it returns data but does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only), prerequisites (e.g., a connection), or performance characteristics. This minimal disclosure is insufficient.

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?

A single, clear sentence: 'Return tracing config and event count.' No wasted words, immediately front-loaded with the verb and resource. Perfect conciseness.

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 (no params, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves room for interpretation. It doesn't explain what 'tracing config' comprises or how the event count is useful. For a straightforward status tool, it is minimally complete.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning beyond the schema. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description effectively communicates the output.

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 returns tracing config and event count, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ble_trace_tail (which returns trace logs) by focusing on status. However, 'tracing config' is somewhat vague, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ble_trace_tail or ble_scan_get_results. The description lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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