Get Device Status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does signal that this is a read (读取) of state held by MCP itself rather than a live device query – useful context that prevents misuse. It does not discuss freshness or side effects, but for a parameterless read with an output schema that is a minor gap.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the state categories. No filler, nothing repeated from the title or schema.

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?

The output schema already documents the return shape, so the description only needs to state what is read and from where, which it does. It could note freshness or that no device round-trip occurs, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 closes with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a well-scoped no-param tool.

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 (读取/read) and a specific resource (MCP 自己持有的设备连接、profile 和 GATT 状态), which is more precise than the title alone. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like list_devices or disconnect_device, so it falls short of a 5.

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 this is the tool to use when you need current connection/profile/GATT state, but it never says when to prefer it over list_devices or when not to call it. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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