lw_ble_engine_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and 'report' plus the enumerated observations strongly signal a non-mutating inspection. It discloses the concrete scope of what is inspected (links, scans, streams, bridge thread health), which is above-average behavioral content. It does not explicitly state that it is side-effect-free or mention any permissions, leaving a minor 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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the report contents, the second frames the diagnostic purpose. The key resource list is front-loaded with 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and a zero-parameter diagnostic needs little else. The description supplies the diagnostic rationale and the metric set, making it complete enough to call correctly; only the absence of explicit read-only framing keeps it from a 5.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema contributes nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed by framing the tool as a self-contained status report.

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 (report) and resource (engine resource usage), then enumerates exactly what is measured: live links, scans, notification streams, and I/O bridge thread health. This clearly distinguishes it as an aggregate diagnostic rather than a per-item lister like lw_ble_connection_status or lw_ble_subscription_list, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear use context in the second sentence: diagnosing resource exhaustion in long-running sessions. This tells an agent when the tool is warranted. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., individual *_list/*_status tools) or stating when not to use it, so it does not reach the top band.

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