get_temperature

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses accuracy (±3 °C), the measurement point (motor driver PCB), and a critical caveat that broadcasting to 'all' produces no responses. This is genuinely useful beyond the schema and adds context a caller needs.

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 text is reasonably sized and the purpose is front-loaded, but the structure is muddled: parameter documentation for 'motor' is glued to the end of the 'Returns:' block rather than presented as its own parameter section. The sentence ordering makes the document less scannable than it could be.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, accuracy, measurement location, and parameter semantics. It omits error behavior or prerequisites, but nothing essential for a basic temperature read is missing.

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 fully compensates. It explains the motor parameter as an alias number, a 16-hex-digit unique ID, or 'all' for broadcast, and clarifies the broadcast has no return values. This is exactly the semantic content the schema omits.

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 opens with 'Get the measured temperature of the motor,' naming a specific verb, resource, and measurement type. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as get_supply_voltage, get_position, and get_motor_status, which cover different read operations.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_motor_status or get_status, which may also expose temperature or related diagnostics. The text provides context (firmware group, measurement location) but no when-to-use criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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