lw_ble_dump

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does add value: it discloses the dump contents and the partial-failure behavior ('fail to read are reported in read_failures instead of aborting'). However, it omits the read-only/side-effect profile, connection-state prerequisites, and timeout 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the failure-handling nuance. No filler and nothing misordered.

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 moderately simple recon tool with an output schema covering return values, the description gives a clear purpose and the key failure-mode behavior. The remaining gap is the entirely undocumented parameters, which is a real but limited shortfall.

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% and the description says nothing about either parameter. Neither connection_id (the required handle) nor timeout_s (its meaning, units, or effect) is explained anywhere, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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: a one-shot recon that returns the service table, all readable characteristic values, and the negotiated MTU. The composite nature implicitly differentiates it from the granular read/discover/mtu siblings, though it never names them.

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 phrase 'one-shot ... in a single call' implies the use case (grab everything at once rather than making several calls), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many read/discover/mtu siblings.

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