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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuine behavioral fact beyond the tool name: it discovers GATT capabilities as part of the call, not just establishing a link. However, it omits failure behavior (device not found, connection timeout), whether it is idempotent or how to release the connection, and any Bluetooth permission 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. It is, however, under-specified rather than concise — the brevity is the source of the gaps in parameter and usage guidance.

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 described, but for a zero-annotation, zero-schema-coverage tool the description should at minimum explain the name-vs-address selection and the connection lifecycle. Neither is present, so an agent could call this with no arguments and have no idea what happens.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, and the description does not compensate: it never mentions that the device may be targeted either by 'name' or by 'address', nor whether they are mutually exclusive or what address format is expected. With both parameters nullable and optional, the description leaves the primary input decision unexplained.

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+resource pair: connecting a designated '心跳元力' BLE device and discovering its GATT services. That is clearly distinguishable from the sibling disconnect_device and from the setters (set_vibration etc.), though it never explicitly names those alternatives. It also does not clarify how the target device is identified, which the ambiguous parameters leave open.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus list_devices, get_device_status, or disconnect_device, and no prerequisite (e.g. 'call after list_devices to obtain the address'). The agent must infer the call ordering from the BLE domain alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does reveal two concrete effects: heartbeat termination and release of the BLE link held by MCP. It does not say what happens if no connection exists, whether the call is idempotent, or whether it is reversible without re-running connect_device.

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 primary effect and adds the heartbeat detail without waste. Nothing is padded or repeated from the 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and a zero-parameter tool needs little input detail. However, the relationship to the sibling stop_device and connect_device (ordering, error state) is left unaddressed, which is the main thing an agent needs to sequence calls 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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed to identify the target.

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: stop the heartbeat and disconnect the BLE connection held by MCP. It is clear this tears down a connection rather than driving the device, which separates it from setters like set_vibration. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with stop_device, which could also plausibly stop activity.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it is finished with a device, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over stop_device or whether it must be called before reconnecting. No alternatives or prerequisites are named.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '读取' implies a read-only operation and the description lists the state categories (connection, profile, GATT), but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the call is safe to repeat. The output schema covers return values, but behavioral context remains thin.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys what state is read and whose state it is.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the state categories being returned. It lacks usage context relative to connect/disconnect siblings, but given the low complexity and available output schema, the gap is minor.

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 schema does not require parameter-level description. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed, making this a baseline 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 states a specific verb (读取/read) and resource (device connection, profile, and GATT status held by MCP itself). It distinguishes this from querying a device directly by specifying that the status is MCP-held. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as list_devices or connect_device.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_devices or connect_device. Usage is only implied by the tool name and purpose; no when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it scans, but discloses nothing about side effects (radio activation), permission requirements, how long the scan blocks, or what distinguishes a 'known' from a newly discovered device. This is a significant gap for an operation with environmental side effects.

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 with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why other dimensions are under-specified.

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 described, but for a two-parameter discovery tool with no annotations the description omits prerequisites, scan behavior, and parameter meaning. It is too thin for the agent to invoke confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it mentions neither 'prefix' (name filtering) nor 'timeout' (scan duration). The scanning concept loosely relates to timeout but no semantics, units, or filtering behavior are conveyed, leaving both parameters opaque.

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 pair (扫描/列出, scan/list) and resource (附近的心跳元力 BLE 设备), so the agent knows this is the device-discovery entry point among siblings like connect_device and get_device_status. It is not explicitly contrasted with any sibling, and '已知的' (known) is slightly ambiguous for a scan operation, keeping it below 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?

No indication of when to call this versus the alternatives: it does not say this is the prerequisite step before connect_device, nor does it mention Bluetooth permissions, adapter state, or that results feed later connect/set_* calls. Usage is only implied by the word 'scan'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that non-zero values require confirm=true, a safety-relevant condition, but omits what happens if confirm is omitted or false, whether zero values are safe, and any device authorization or rate-limit behavior.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the critical confirmation condition attached. It contains no filler.

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 device-mutating tool with no annotations and only 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but operational context, level range, and safety behavior remain incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has to compensate. It clarifies that level controls 伸缩强度 and that non-zero level requires confirm=true, which adds meaningful semantics, but it gives no range, units, or integer bounds for level.

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 names a specific verb (设置) and resource (DK-META2 伸缩强度), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself somewhat from set_vibration and set_rotary by specifying linear extension/retraction intensity, but it does not explicitly route against those siblings.

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 only guidance is that non-zero values require confirm=true, which is a parameter precondition rather than general when-to-use guidance. There is no explanation of when to choose this tool over set_vibration, set_rotary, or stop_device.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important safety gate (non-zero values require explicit confirmation), which is real behavioral context. However it omits repeat-call semantics, what happens if confirm is false, connection prerequisites, and whether the value persists, leaving substantive gaps for a mutation 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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately qualifies the confirm requirement. No wasted text, though it is terse enough that some necessary detail is simply absent rather than trimmed.

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-value explanation is not needed. For a device-mutating tool with no annotations, the description covers the core safety rule but omits prerequisites (e.g. connect_device first), level bounds, and failure/edge behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across two parameters, so the description does all the work. It conveys that 'level' is rotation intensity and that 'confirm' is a boolean gate tied to non-zero levels, but adds no ranges, units, or bounds for 'level' or default behavior for 'confirm'.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: setting the rotation intensity of the DK-META2 device, which distinguishes it from the sibling set_vibration and set_linear tools. It is clear about what is affected, though it does not explicitly contrast itself against stop_device or the other setter siblings.

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?

Provides one concrete usage condition: a non-zero level requires confirm=true, which is a genuine invocation rule an agent must honor. It offers no guidance on when to choose this over set_vibration/set_linear/stop_device or any prerequisite ordering.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions that non-zero values require confirm=true, which is a useful behavioral hint, but it lacks information about permissions, side effects, reversibility, or response format. For a mutation tool, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and directly states the action and a key condition. It doesn't waste words, though it could benefit from additional structure for clarity.

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 is a mutation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema that is not leveraged in the description, the definition is incomplete. It should describe parameter ranges, device state requirements, and side effects to be fully callable by an agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither the schema nor the description explains the 'level' parameter (e.g., range, units) or the 'confirm' parameter beyond the conditional requirement. The description adds a constraint (confirm=true for non-zero) but leaves the primary parameter undefined.

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 ('设置' = set) and resource (DK-META2 vibration intensity). However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like set_linear or set_rotary beyond the 'vibration' aspect. It's somewhat vague on whether this is the only vibration parameter tool.

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 a conditional rule about 'confirm' but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or device connection requirements. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states idempotency ('可重复调用'), which is real behavioral information, but omits whether an active connection is required and what happens if the device is already stopped or disconnected.

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?

Two tight clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the idempotency caveat. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter action with an output schema present, the description covers the action and idempotency, which is most of what an agent needs. The only gap is connection/prerequisite state, which is minor at this complexity.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter meaning is needed or missing.

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: zeroing all supported outputs on the current device. This contrasts implicitly with the per-output siblings (set_vibration, set_linear, set_rotary), though it never names them, so the distinction must be inferred.

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?

Usage is implied by the action itself (stop all outputs on the current device), and the idempotency note gives operational context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus disconnect_device or the individual set_* tools, and no prerequisites are stated.

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