set_safety_limits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that setting limits affects firmware position limits and that exceeding them faults the motor, which is important behavioral context. It also notes that broadcasting to 'all' motors yields no responses, a useful edge-case behavior. However, it doesn't mention whether this is persistent across reboots, whether it requires prior homing, or any side effects on existing motion.

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 concise and front-loads the core purpose. However, the parameter section is somewhat disorganized: the 'in degrees' vs 'in microsteps' contradiction suggests sloppy editing, and the motor description is placed awkwardly after the returns line. It earns a 3 because it's compact but not cleanly structured.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose, parameters, and return behavior. But the unit ambiguity for limits is a critical gap, and there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., homing, motor enabled) or whether limits are absolute positions relative to zero. The motor parameter is well covered, but the core numeric parameters are under-specified.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does list the three parameters and their types, but the descriptions are confusing: lowerLimit is described as 'in degrees' yet the parenthetical says 'in microsteps' – a direct contradiction. The motor parameter is well explained with examples, but the limit units are ambiguous, which is a significant gap for a tool that sets numeric bounds.

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 the tool's purpose: setting safety limits to prevent motion from exceeding set bounds, and identifies it as a firmware command in the Configuration group. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_maximum_velocity and set_maximum_acceleration by focusing on position bounds rather than motion parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies when to use this tool: when configuring firmware position limits to prevent motion from exceeding bounds. It notes that moves beyond these limits fault the motor, which is a key usage consideration. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like set_maximum_velocity for velocity limits, leaving some inference to the agent.

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