Run a full robot health check to report battery level, LiDAR and IMU status, active node count, plus critical issues and warnings—use it first when diagnosing readiness or faults.
Run a full robot health check. Returns battery level, LiDAR status, IMU health, active node count, and lists of critical issues and warnings. ALWAYS call this first when the user asks 'what's wrong?' or 'is the robot ready?'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does 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 the exact return data (battery, LiDAR, IMU, node count, issues/warnings) and implies a read-only check. Minor gap: it does not explicitly state whether running the check has side effects or takes time.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output list, and the second sentence gives decisive usage guidance. 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to invoke it. It is complete in context.
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 has zero parameters, so the description needs to add no parameter context. The rubric sets a baseline of 4 for zero-param tools, and there is no missing parameter information.
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 'Run' and a clear resource 'full robot health check', enumerating concrete outputs (battery level, LiDAR status, IMU health, active node count, critical issues/warnings). The trigger phrase 'what's wrong?' or 'is the robot ready?' differentiates it from more granular sibling tools like list_nodes or get_pid_state.
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?
It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'ALWAYS call this first when the user asks...' This gives clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so a full 5 is not warranted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.