detect_devices

Does 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 a critical side effect: 'this reboots every motor on the bus — positions re-zero at the current shaft location and MOSFETs turn off.' This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a potentially disruptive tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, when to use it, and the critical warning. The caution is front-loaded enough to be noticed. 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the trigger conditions, the parameter semantics, and the side effects. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'attempts' parameter's meaning ('merged detection rounds') and its effect on reliability. It doesn't specify valid range or default behavior, but the schema already provides a default of 3, and the description adds the semantic meaning.

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 specific verb ('Re-scan'), a specific resource ('the connected bus for motors'), and the mechanism (firmware's 'Detect devices' command). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like list_motors (which lists known motors) and connect (which establishes a connection).

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'after plugging in / powering on motors, or when a motor seems missing.' It also explains the attempts parameter's trade-off (more rounds = more reliable with many motors). It doesn't name a specific alternative tool, but the usage context is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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