rs_get_station

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it 'gets info', implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention potential errors (e.g., if no station is active), response structure, or any guarantees about the output. The lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and edge cases.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary and meaningful. No extraneous content.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It covers the basic purpose and what data is returned (name, controllers) but lacks details on response format, error conditions, or the exact scope of 'station info'. For a simple tool with no parameters, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, as there are none. It correctly implies no inputs are required, aligning with the schema.

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 retrieves active RobotStudio station info, specifying 'name, controllers'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('station info'), making its purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'rs_get_station_objects' or 'rs_get_paths', which could also return station-related data.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools, and without explicit context (e.g., 'Use this for basic station identification; for detailed object lists use rs_get_station_objects'), the agent cannot easily determine the appropriate usage scenario.

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