identify

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the LED behavior, the 3-second duration, the firmware command, the success return, and the important 'all broadcasts get no responses back' behavior—good transparency for a one-parameter command.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core user-relevant behavior. The bracketed firmware-command metadata is slightly redundant but does not add significant noise.

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 simple one-parameter, no-output-schema command, the description provides the invocation forms, expected behavior, and result behavior. The broadcast caveat is included, which is the main trap that could confuse an agent.

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 schema only says motor is a string, so the description is essential. It fully compensates by defining the three accepted forms—alias number, 16-hex-digit ID, and 'all'—with concrete examples and the special broadcast consequence.

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 that the tool identifies a motor and produces a visible response—the green LED flashing for 3 seconds. This is a distinct result that distinguishes it from sibling tools like ping or get_product_info.

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 intended situation is implied: call this when you need to physically identify which motor on the bus is which. However, it never names alternatives or gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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