List known Bluetooth devices

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

The description adds 'Read-only,' which is a behavioral trait beyond any annotations (since none provided). However, it doesn't disclose more about the output format or any side effects. Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it covers safety but not other behaviors that an agent might need.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that state the purpose and the read-only nature. It's front-loaded and contains no fluff, perfectly sized for such a simple tool.

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?

While the tool is simple, the absence of an output schema means the description should at least hint at what is returned. It only says 'list known Bluetooth devices,' without mentioning the format or fields (e.g., names, addresses). This leaves the agent to guess the output structure. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it doesn't; this 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 the action (list) and resource (known Bluetooth devices), and it's distinct from siblings like bluetooth_connect or bluetooth_toggle because it's about listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other listing tools, but that's not necessary. The purpose is clear and specific.

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 about when to use this vs other Bluetooth tools; it doesn't mention alternatives or conditions. The description is purely declarative and leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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