lw_ble_connect

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 discloses two traits: a connection_id is returned on success, and the call is wrapped in an outer timeout so a stalled driver cannot hang the client. However, it omits failure modes, whether pairing is required, idempotency/duplicate-connection behavior, and the need to later disconnect.

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 core action and followed by return value and timeout behavior. No filler, though the timeout sentence is the least essential of the three.

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 no further explanation. But with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the 'pair' parameter and connect preconditions unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for a session-establishing tool.

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 for all three parameters. It explains 'address' (a MAC) and alludes to the timeout wrapping, but says nothing about the 'pair' parameter or how 'timeout_s' relates to the described outer timeout. Significant compensation gap.

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: 'Open a GATT session with a peripheral, addressed by its MAC.' It is easy to distinguish from siblings like lw_ble_scan or lw_ble_disconnect, though it never explicitly names an alternative or contrast. Clear and specific, just without sibling-level differentiation.

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 contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites. It never states that this should be called before read/write/subscribe, nor whether a prior scan is required to obtain the MAC. Usage is only inferable from the tool name itself.

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