Bluetooth adapter status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is the critical side-effect disclosure for a status tool. It also specifies it targets the 'default' adapter, which is meaningful context. It does not describe the return format (e.g., boolean) or error handling, but for a simple read-only status check, this is sufficient transparency.

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 a single, compact sentence that states the action, target, and safety trait. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero filler words.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description conveys everything essential: what it reports, on which adapter, and that it has no side effects. The agent can correctly invoke it without further clarification.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter details. No compensation is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Report'), a specific resource ('the default Bluetooth adapter'), and the exact outcome ('whether it is powered'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like bluetooth_toggle, bluetooth_devices, and bluetooth_connect, which represent different actions on Bluetooth hardware.

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 as a status check (read-only), but does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternatives like bluetooth_toggle or bluetooth_devices. The user must infer that this is for querying power state only, making the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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