get_motion_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the internal behavior—joining AxisNum assignments in startup code with servo groups in the I/O configuration—rather than merely restating the tool name. The 'summarise' wording also implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state side-effect status.

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 front-loads the purpose, gives a focused domain explanation with a concrete example, and ends with the argument. No sentences are wasted, and the code example earns its place by clarifying how AxisNum bindings work.

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 one-required-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers input semantics, purpose, and the question it answers. It does not mention prerequisites like a loaded project, but the path argument and output schema make the tool callable without much additional context.

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?

The schema only says path is a string with no description, so the description's 'Project file or directory' adds essential meaning. This adequately clarifies what the agent should pass for the single required parameter.

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 and resource: 'Summarise the motion setup' and names the exact content covered (axes, amplifier bindings, network nodes). It also distinguishes itself by explaining that it joins AxisNum assignments with servo groups, setting it apart from generic I/O config tools.

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 gives a concrete use case: answering 'which servo is axis 1?', which makes the intended invocation clear. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusion cases, but it provides enough context to select this tool over simpler retrieval tools.

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