cycle_motor_on_touch

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

Annotations provide little value with all hints false, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the motor cycling behavior and the success beep, which goes beyond the schema. However, it omits important behavioral details such as failure handling, timeout behavior, and blocking semantics.

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 12-word sentence that front-loads the core action and ends with the outcome. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema information.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a large sibling set, this description is too thin. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral detail needed for correct invocation, especially without any annotation support.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely alludes to 'touch' and 'beep', giving hints about touch_port and beep-related parameters, but it does not explain cycles, forward_power, max_ticks_per_phase, timeout_seconds_per_phase, or how these parameters interact.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cycle') and a clear resource ('a motor') with a distinctive behavior ('between touch press/release phases, then beep on success'). It conveys the tool's core function well enough to distinguish it from generic run/move siblings, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_motor_until_sensor or run_motor. The description states what the tool does but not the conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where it should be preferred, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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