go_to_closed_loop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds some behavioral facts: it returns a success confirmation and explicitly notes that broadcast commands receive no responses. However, it does not disclose any side effects, potential errors, or whether switching mode interrupts motion. The 'no responses' broadcast detail is valuable but the transparency about the mode switch's effects is limited.

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?

Description is compact and front-loaded: it opens with purpose, then the return statement, then the parameter details. Each sentence provides distinct info, and there is no filler. The broadcast caveat is placed with the parameter, which is the most relevant place. Minor inefficiency: 'group:' adds background but is not essential for invocation.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the command purpose and return confirmation. However, it lacks contextual details such as when the command must be called, whether it is required before position moves, and what happens if an invalid motor ID is given or if broadcast is not supported. The description is adequate but leaves the agent without full operational context.

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 only states 'motor' is a string, but the description explains accepted forms: alias number, 16-hex-digit ID, or 'all' for broadcast. It clarifies the meaning of the parameter and adds the critical caveat about broadcast responses. Since schema coverage is 0%, this text fully compensates by giving concrete value examples and semantics.

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 action: 'Go to closed loop position mode', naming the verb and the resource (the control mode). The firmware command and group reference provide context that distinguishes it from motion commands like move_to or set_position. It is not explicitly compared to sibling tools, so the differentiation relies on the mode terminology rather than an explicit contrast.

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 tells what the tool does but not when to use it. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., motor must be enabled or calibrated) or scenarios where this command is appropriate, nor does it reference alternatives. There is only the 'motor' parameter explanation, so an agent is left to infer usage from the name and purpose.

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