get_ble_readings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the query is for historical readings (implying read-only) but does not disclose pagination behavior, data retention limits, permission requirements, or error scenarios. More transparency is needed for a query tool with no annotations.

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: one sentence for purpose followed by a succinct parameter list. No unnecessary words. Front-loads the core function, making it easy to scan.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description explains purpose and parameters adequately but lacks details on return format (e.g., timestamp format, measurement units), rate limits, or error handling. It is functional but not fully complete for an agent to use without assumptions.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'did' as BLE device ID, 'hours' as query recency (default 24), 'limit' as max results (default 100). This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and types, though further details like units could improve clarity.

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 queries historical temperature and humidity readings from a Bluetooth sensor for trend analysis. It specifies the resource (BLE sensor readings) and action (query history), distinguishing it from siblings like get_ble_sensor (likely current data) and list_ble_devices (listing devices).

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 implies usage for trend analysis but does not explicitly state when to use or alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use or comparisons to sibling tools like get_ble_sensor. The purpose is clear, but usage context is only implied.

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