run_motor_until_sensor

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose that the motor will physically move, whether the call blocks until a condition is met, what happens after stopping (brake behavior), or any side effects. 'Run a motor' implies motion but no further details.

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, efficient sentence with no redundancy, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. It front-loads the purpose but omits essential behavioral and parameter detail, so brevity does not equate to effective structure.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot infer how to set sensor_type, threshold, regulated, or brake, nor understand the blocking nature or return behavior. The three listed stop conditions are the only concrete guidance.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It hints at three stopping triggers (sensor condition, timeout_seconds, max_ticks) but leaves power, brake, regulated, sensor_type, threshold, and condition values unexplained. The mapping is partial and insufficient for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('a motor') with a clear stopping condition ('until a sensor condition, timeout, or travel limit'). It distinguishes from simpler tools like run_motor and plural variants like run_motors_until_sensor, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as run_motor, run_motors_until_sensor, or cycle_motor_on_touch. Usage is only implied by the name and the three stopping conditions, leaving selection to inference.

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