classic_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully defines the 'connected' field ('whether each is linked to the mac now'), but says nothing about whether Bluetooth must be powered, permission/pairing prerequisites, or whether the call is a cached lookup versus an active scan — meaningful for a device-enumeration tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the one output field that matters, then the follow-up routing. Nothing is padded and no sentence could be dropped without loss.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and the description adds the one field-level meaning worth knowing plus next-step tools. The remaining gap is the unresolved relationship to list_devices and scan, which an agent picking between the three would want.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no argument semantics to explain and the description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'list the bluetooth classic devices paired with this mac,' which scopes it precisely to paired Classic devices. It does not, however, name sibling list_devices or explain how it differs from a scan, so the agent must infer the Classic-vs-BLE/paired-vs-discovered split.

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 second half explicitly routes the agent: 'use an address from here with classic_services, classic_send and classic_listen,' which is clear downstream guidance naming three concrete alternatives. It lacks a negative case (e.g., use scan/list_devices for unpaired or BLE devices), so the only gap is an exclusion clause.

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