get_ble_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the underlying HTTP endpoint (GET /api/ble/status), the API method (BLEApi.get_ble_status()), and the exact response fields with types and example values. This goes well beyond a simple 'get status' and reveals the read-only nature implicitly, though it does not mention error conditions or access requirements.

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 structured with an opening sentence, a technical detail sentence, a return field list, and a use case. Each section adds value, but it is slightly verbose compared to the two-sentence high benchmark. Still, it is well-organized and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 simple parameterless getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it does it (endpoint/method), what it returns (with field types and examples), and when to use it. It lacks explicit error/disconnected device behavior, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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, so the description needs no parameter documentation. The schema coverage is 100% (trivially), and the description adds no param semantics required. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve BLE module status from the Busy Bar device.' It uniquely identifies BLE status among the sibling get_* tools, and the mention of returning status and address provides concrete scope.

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 'Use case' section provides clear context: verify BLE module is powered on and has a valid address before Bluetooth operations like smart home pairing or device discovery. This gives strong guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, which prevents a 5.

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