run_motors

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

Annotations are all false and provide little safety or read-only context, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds that motors run together with continuous signed power, which implies ongoing movement and direction, but it does not disclose that motors keep running until stopped, whether the call blocks, or how the `regulated` flag affects behavior. This is partial transparency.

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?

Single sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's behavior.

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 a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and many motor-related siblings, the description is enough to identify intent but not fully enough to invoke correctly. Missing details include array correspondence, stop behavior, and `regulated` semantics; these gaps matter more because the schema itself has no field descriptions.

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 description adds meaning to `ports` and `powers` by stating 'one to three motors' and 'signed continuous power', which the bare schema does not convey. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it should clarify more: it does not explain that `ports` and `powers` correspond element-wise, power ranges, port uniqueness, or what the optional `regulated` parameter controls.

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?

Verb 'Start' plus resource 'motors' and explicit scope ('one to three', 'together', 'signed continuous power') clearly identifies a multi-motor continuous-power command. This distinguishes it from siblings like run_motor (single motor), move_motors_* (position moves), and stop_motors (stopping).

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 the multi-motor continuous-power use case, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over run_motor, move_motors_relative, or run_motors_until_sensor. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints, so the agent must infer usage from sibling names and context.

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