vibrate

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

Discloses that motor='all' broadcasts and returns no response, and that return is a success confirmation. But with no annotations, the description carries the full burden and omits edge behaviors (e.g., behavior when already vibrating, safety implications).

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?

Compact and mostly front-loaded, but the motor parameter explanation is awkwardly placed after the return statement; the paragraph could be structured more cleanly.

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?

Covers return confirmation and motor addressing, but omits connection requirements, error conditions, and whether the vibration is persistent or a pulse. For a simple command this is adequate but not 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%, and the description fully compensates: it explains vibrationLevel values (0=off, 1=on) and the three motor addressing forms, including the special 'all' broadcast case.

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?

States a specific action ('cause the motor to vibrate') with the ability to stop it via level 0. Clear enough as a distinct command, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like stop or move_with_acceleration.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this vs. siblings such as stop, emergency_stop, or move_with_acceleration. It implies vibration control but never states the intended context or prerequisites.

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