get_firmware_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does disclose the mode-dependent result, the status-bit semantics, the return fields, and the fact that broadcast requests receive no responses. It does not cover error cases or permissions, but for a read-style query the key behaviors are transparent.

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 reasonably sized and front-loaded, but it contains redundancy (status bit and inBootloader explained twice) and multiple typos ('significan', 'teels', 'reguslar'). The motor parameter explanation is appended awkwardly after the return-value list rather than in a structured parameter section.

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 read command with no output schema, the description covers the input variants, the mode-dependent return behavior, and the exact meaning of both returned fields. There is minor ambiguity about whether both returned fields are always present, but no critical missing information.

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 input schema only declares motor as a required string, while the description explains the accepted forms: alias number, 16-hex-digit unique ID, or 'all' for broadcast, including the no-response consequence. 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 identifies that the tool returns the firmware or bootloader version depending on the current mode, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling info tools like get_product_info or get_status, so it falls short of a 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?

The mode-dependent behavior gives some contextual guidance for when the result will be firmware versus bootloader. No alternative tools are named and there is no explicit when-to-use vs siblings guidance, but the purpose is implied clearly enough by the first sentence.

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