start_calibration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects: motor spins and becomes unresponsive, which is crucial for a hardware tool. It also mentions that broadcasts get no responses back, a useful behavioral nuance. However, it doesn't specify success/failure conditions or potential risks beyond the physical constraints.

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 well-structured with the main purpose first, followed by a behavioral caution, then return info photoeffects and parameter semantics. It is concise but includes essential details without fluff. Slightly long due to firmware command annotation, but that adds context.

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?

Given the single-param complexity and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, parameter format, and return type. It lacks details on how to interpret success confirmation or error handling, but for a simple calibration command, it is mostly complete.

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 must fully explain the 'motor' parameter. It does: an alias number, a 16-hex-digit ID, or 'all' for broadcast, and states broadcasts get no responses. This is comprehensive and compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 it starts a calibration routine, defines its purpose (determine average hall sensor values and check sensor correctness), and mentions the motor spins and the shaft must be free. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'capture_hall_sensor_data' or 'control_hall_sensor_statistics', though the calibration purpose is distinct enough for an agent.

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 includes explicit operational notes: the motor will spin, the shaft must be free, and the motor is unresponsive during calibration. It does not explicitly say when to use vs. alternatives, but the unique calibration purpose makes the usage context clear. Missing exclusions for cases like when calibration is unnecessary or when other tools should be used.

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