get_motors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond that: the unit is microseconds and a value of 0 means the motor is inactive. It does not explain ordering, count, or whether values are live or last-commanded, so it is additive but not rich.

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 clause plus a unit annotation and an edge-case definition — no filler at all. The most important information (what is returned, in what unit) is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only place return semantics could be documented. It gives the unit and the zero-value meaning, which is a good start, but omits how many motors are returned, their order/indexing, and whether the reading is live PWM output — details an agent would want before relying on it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the 0-param baseline of 4 applies. Schema description coverage is 100% and there is nothing to document; the description correctly spends no words on parameters.

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 names a specific resource (motor outputs) and its unit (µs), which distinguishes it from telemetry siblings like get_imu_data, get_attitude, or get_battery. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, but the intent is unmistakable. No explicit differentiation from the other get_* tools beyond the resource name.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or context (e.g. 'use to verify motor outputs before arming'). The usage is only implied by the resource name. Basic telemetry reads need little guidance, but nothing here helps an agent choose among the ~20 sibling get_* tools.

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