cyd_bt_status

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 clearly states this is a read-only observation, lists the specific data it exposes, and adds a runtime constraint ('Bluetooth runs only in radio mode bluetooth'). It does not mention side effects, but 'Observation' strongly implies none.

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 group that front-loads the key facts (machine-specific, observation) and then enumerates the status contents in a scannable list. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 no-argument observation tool, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the data points returned, and a runtime prerequisite. It does not describe the return format, but absence of an output schema and the simplicity of a status read make this a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 input schema is empty, so the schema coverage is trivially complete. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter detail. Nothing more 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 ('Read') and resource ('Bluetooth keyboard state'), and enumerates exactly what that state includes: connected/remembered keyboard, pairing progress with PIN/passkey, and last scan results. This clearly differentiates it from mutation or scan siblings like cyd_bt_connect, cyd_bt_forget, and cyd_bt_scan.

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 signals this is an observation tool ('Observation, L3') and provides a prerequisite ('Bluetooth runs only in radio mode bluetooth'). However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer it over sibling tools such as cyd_bt_scan or cyd_bt_connect, nor does it state exclusions (e.g., 'use cyd_bt_scan to initiate a new scan'). Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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