robot_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Report' explicitly indicates a read-only operation, listing all the data points the agent will receive. It does not explicitly state 'no side effects,' but the verb and scope make the behavioral trait sufficiently clear for a status tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that enumerates the exact content of the report. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is as concise as possible while conveying the full purpose.

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 simple read-only status tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers what the tool reports. It does not need to explain return values given the output schema. It lacks explicit usage guidance, but that is a minor gap for a self-evident status tool.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain any parameters. Per the baseline for 0 params, the score is 4; no additional parameter semantics are necessary.

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 function with the verb 'Report' and specifies the exact resource (robot status) and its components (dry-run flag, SSH connection state, motor ports, busy flag, last error). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools that perform actions like move_forward or stop.

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 usage as a diagnostic/status tool among a set of action-oriented siblings, but does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., before/after commands) or provide exclusions/alternatives. Usage context is clear by inference only.

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