krl_live_telemetry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the operation is a read, requires a Professional license, and needs a live connection, which is real added context. It omits failure behavior if the controller is disconnected, latency/freshness of the telemetry, and whether the call blocks or errors.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the payload fields, then the prerequisites. The parenthetical field list is dense but every item is informative; only the placement of licensing at the tail costs it a perfect score.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned telemetry fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to know. Combined with license/connection constraints, the coverage is solid; only disconnect/error behavior is left unaddressed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this starts at 4. The description correctly implies no input is required, and the long field enumeration actually reads as return-value documentation rather than a missing-parameter gap.

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 verb and resource — 'Reads real-time operational telemetry from ... KUKA Robot Controller' — and enumerates the exact data fields returned (TCP position, joint angles, $OV_PRO, mode, alarms). This clearly separates it from documentation-style siblings like krl_syntax_reference or krl_workspace_diagnostics, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with krl_bridge_status, which is the nearest neighbor.

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 prerequisites ('Requires KUKA KRL Professional license and active controller connection') imply when the tool is callable, but the description never states when to choose this over siblings or what to do if preconditions fail. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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