list_motors

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the result is a live snapshot, that an empty list is possible even when hardware is connected, and that detection or a different serial port may be needed. It does not explicitly state side-effect freedom, but the 'List' verb and the content provided make the read-only nature reasonably clear.

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: purpose first, then usage guidance, then a troubleshooting fallback. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no filler.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the return content, the prerequisite (connect), the user-intent trigger, and the empty-result fallback. For a zero-parameter listing tool, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about the bus and detected motors without needing to explain parameters that do not exist.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the detected motors' followed by the exact data returned (position, voltage, temperature, status). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like detect_devices (detection vs listing) and get_motor_status (single motor vs all motors).

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?

It explicitly says when to call it: after connect, or when the user asks about connected motors and their locations. It also names the fallback action and alternative tool, detect_devices, for the empty-result case, giving clear routing guidance.

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