get_debug_values

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does note that broadcasting to 'all' yields no responses, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid motor IDs, error handling, or any side effects. The description is largely a data dictionary rather than a behavioral contract.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a structured bullet list of return fields, and ends with the parameter explanation. The list is long (30+ items) but each entry is useful for setting expectations. No redundant prose; the structure is efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description's exhaustive list of return fields is essential and well provided. The parameter behavior is explained. It lacks details on error cases, units, or return format structure, but for a debug data retrieval tool, it covers the key usage aspects. The absence of usage guidelines is a gap, but that is addressed in a separate dimension.

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 description adds substantial meaning to the 'motor' parameter, which the schema only types as string. It explains accepted formats (alias number, 16-hex-digit ID, 'all'), provides examples, and explicitly states that broadcasts get no responses. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves debug values and lists specific categories (motor control parameters, profiler times, hall sensor data). It goes beyond a tautology by enumerating the return fields, giving a concrete sense of scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_status or get_motor_status, which also return diagnostic information, so it is not a perfect 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. It only describes what it returns and the motor parameter format. The mention of the firmware command group (Status & Monitoring) is a reference, not usage guidance.

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