get_mac_address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the tool's name without adding details about side effects, permissions, or return behavior. For a simple getter, one might expect at least a note that it is read-only and returns the MAC address, but that is not explicitly stated.

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, front-loaded sentence that is entirely to the point. No filler words or redundant information. It earns its place by delivering the core purpose in five 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, has output schema), the description is adequate. The output schema likely documents the return value, so the description need not explain that. However, it lacks any mention of prerequisites or context, but for a basic getter this is not a significant gap. A 4 is appropriate because it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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, and the schema has 100% coverage with no properties to describe. The description doesn't need to compensate for parameter documentation. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema and parameter count make the absence of additional parameter info acceptable.

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 'Get Bluetooth MAC address' clearly states a specific verb and resource, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_firmware_version or get_battery_status by specifying the exact data being retrieved.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While among many get_* tools, it gives no context or exclusions. The user is left to infer that this is for reading the Bluetooth MAC address, but no explicit conditions or scenarios are mentioned.

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