time_sync

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does mention return values and broadcast behavior, but it contains a direct internal contradiction: masterTime is described as '(in seconds)' and then '(in microseconds)'. This is misleading and could cause incorrect inputs. It also does not state any side effects (e.g., that it modifies the motor's clock) or prerequisites (e.g., connection). The conflicting units are a serious transparency failure.

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 not well structured: the motor parameter description appears after the returns section, and the unit contradiction adds confusion. The first sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the rest is disjointed and includes redundant firmware info. The organization harms readability and violates the conciseness principle of every sentence earning its place.

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?

The description attempts to explain returns (timeError, rccIcscr) and the motor parameter, but it omits critical context: the unit ambiguity for masterTime, error handling, and any prerequisites or limitations. Since there is no output schema, the description must be the sole source for correct usage, and it fails to be complete due to the contradictory unit information and lack of edge-case guidance.

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 document parameters. It does describe motor (alias, ID, or 'all') and masterTime, but the masterTime documentation is self-contradictory about units and unclear. This adds some value over the bare schema but is misleading and potentially harmful. The motor description is useful, but the masterTime flaw drags the score down.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Sends the master time to the motor so that it can sync its own clock.' This is a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like get_current_time or reset_time. The firmware command reference adds context but is not necessary for clarity. The purpose is unambiguous despite the messy parameter documentation.

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 provides concrete usage guidance: 'do this 10 times per second' and explains the motor parameter formats including broadcast behavior with its caveat ('broadcasts get no responses back'). It implies when to use (for clock sync) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The frequency recommendation and broadcast caution are valuable for correct invocation.

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