drive_sync

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

Annotations are all false and do not convey behavior, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the synchronization is firmware-level, but it does not say whether the call blocks, how long motors run, whether they continue until stopped, or how to stop them. For a start-style action with no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 with no filler and starts with the action verb. It is highly concise, although the brevity contributes to missing behavioral and parameter detail, which is penalized in other dimensions.

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?

With four parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and annotations that do not describe runtime behavior, one phrase is not enough for correct invocation. The description omits termination behavior, return/acknowledgment behavior, prerequisites, and turn_ratio semantics, and it does not connect to relevant siblings like stop_motors or emergency_stop.

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 needed to compensate. It clarifies that left_port and right_port are the two motors of the pair, but it does not explain the meaning, range, or units of power, nor the semantics of turn_ratio, including sign, scale, or default behavior. The description adds little beyond the bare parameter names.

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 gives a specific verb, 'Start', and a specific resource, 'firmware-synchronised two-motor drive pair'. The 'firmware-synchronised' modifier distinguishes this from general motor siblings like run_motors or move_motors, so an agent can identify the unique purpose.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description suggests using this when a synchronized two-motor drive is needed, but it does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, nor does it name alternatives. There is no exclusion guidance compared to other motor tools.

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