run_motor

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

The description discloses the essential behavioral trait that the motor keeps moving until explicitly stopped, which goes beyond the annotations' simple readOnly/idempotent flags. It does not mention power semantics, the need for a later stop_motor call, or whether the call blocks, but the core persistent side effect is clearly communicated.

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 with no filler. Every word adds value, and the most important behavioral detail—continuous motion until stopped—is front and center.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits crucial context around parameter semantics and how to terminate the motion. With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, an agent is left guessing about power ranges, regulated behavior, and the connection to stop_motor.

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%, and the description provides no information about power, port, or regulated. An agent cannot infer valid power range, sign conventions, units, or the meaning of the regulated flag from either the schema or the description.

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 and resource ('run a motor') and adds a key behavioral qualifier: 'continuously; it keeps moving until explicitly stopped.' This distinguishes it from one-shot movement tools like move_motor_relative and from conditional tools like run_motor_until_sensor, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 implies use when continuous motor motion is desired, but it does not state when to prefer alternatives such as run_motor_until_sensor, run_motors, or stop_motor. There is no explicit when-not guidance or alternative routing.

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