test_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers. It reveals that LED modes lock up the device, modes 14-73 trigger fatal errors, overvoltage thresholds can be changed with a production-test side effect, and a system reset restores defaults. It also discloses dependency on firmware internals and that broadcasts yield no responses.

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 longer than typical but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the warning and then uses a compact list to cover all mode ranges. The only mild inefficiency is the 'NOTE: Developer/diagnostic modes' line, which partially duplicates the earlier warning, but the overall structure is clear and scannable.

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 tool with two parameters and complex mode semantics, the description provides sufficient context: it states the return value ('success confirmation'), explains the side effects of each mode group, and covers both parameters exhaustively. No aspects an agent needs to call it safely are missing, and the absence of an output schema is offset by the explicit return note.

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% (no parameter descriptions in the schema), and the description compensates thoroughly. For testMode it enumerates every meaningful value (0-75) with behavioral consequences. For motor it explains valid formats: alias number, 16-hex-digit ID, or 'all' for broadcast, including the caveat that broadcasts get no responses. This removes any need to guess parameter meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Set or trigger a certain test mode.' It goes on to enumerate concrete mode values and their effects (motor tests, LED tests, fatal errors, overvoltage thresholds), which clearly distinguishes it from the many motor control and configuration siblings. An agent can tell this is a diagnostic tool, not a normal motion or config operation.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Don't use this unless you are a developer working on test cases.' It also warns that certain modes 'locks up the device' and that fatal errors are triggerable, plus notes that broadcasts return no responses. These constraints and consequences leave no ambiguity about whether an agent should call it.

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