lw_ble_discover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a non-mutating GATT traversal, but does not state that it requires an active connection, what happens on timeout, whether results are cached, or any failure 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that communicates the operation and its output scope with no wasted words.

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 the return structure need not be repeated. But for a two-parameter BLE tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition omits the connection prerequisite and timeout behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 undocumented parameters. It says nothing about the required connection_id or the optional timeout_s, leaving both parameters semantically 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Walk the remote GATT database') and names exactly what is returned (services, characteristics, descriptors), which distinguishes it from sibling operations like read, write, subscribe, and 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?

Usage is implied by 'in one call'—use this when the full remote GATT database is needed instead of individual reads. However, it never states when-not to use it or names alternative siblings such as lw_ble_read or lw_ble_dump.

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