lw_ble_connection_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (liveness and identity), which implies a non-mutating read, but says nothing about error behavior when the connection is absent, permissions, or whether the call blocks on a live BLE probe.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the operation and its payload. No filler, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise for a status tool.

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 and the description sensibly summarizes the returned content rather than restating it, which is good. But it omits the meaning of connection_id and any failure-mode context, leaving real gaps for a tool in a 21-member BLE family.

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 single required parameter, connection_id, is not mentioned in the description at all, and schema description coverage is 0%, so nothing anywhere explains its format, source, or whether it must correspond to an active connection. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare property name.

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 clear verb ('Report') and a specific subject: the liveness of a session plus the peripheral's identity details. This distinguishes it in practice from lw_ble_connection_list (enumerate sessions), though the description never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus lw_ble_connection_list, lw_ble_engine_status, or lw_ble_scan_list. Usage is only implied by the word 'session', leaving the agent to infer that this checks a specific existing connection.

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