crc32_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explicitly warns about a persistent protocol-framing side effect on all subsequent commands and notes broadcast yields no responses. It doesn't detail permissions, failures, or exact framing change, but it is substantive beyond the raw schema. A 4 rather than 5 because it omits what happens if CRC mode is mismatched (commands being dropped/wrong framing) and doesn't discuss the broader consequences beyond the caution.

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 front-loads the core actiony with the warning, includes parameter documentation compactly. Slight redundancy: parameter details appear in descriptions as well as parameters list. Still no filler. A 4.

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 two-parameter control command with no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, parameters, and return. The broadcast semantics are documentedebab. Missing a bit on error behavior and exact values beyond 1/0, but sufficient for an agent to call correctly. No output schema to rely on, so the mention of

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 schema has minimal descriptions for both parameters, and the description includes inline parameter documentation: enableCrc32 values are defined (1 enable, 0 disable), and motor parameter accepts alias, unique ID, or broadcast with a note about no responses. That adds meaning beyond schema. However, it doesn't specify the allowed range of motor values or exact format of the ID beyond the example. Baseline 3 because schema description coverage is low and description compensates partially.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair (

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 description provides strong guidance: enables/disables CRC32, and specifically cautions 'only disable CRC32 if you know why' plus warns that it changes protocol framing for ALL subsequent commands. It gives context but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state exact conditions (e.g., during firmware upgrade or when talking to legacy controllers), so not a full 5.

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