run_motors_until_sensor

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

Annotations only show readOnlyHint=false and non-destructive, so the description adds the key behavioral trait that operation stops on sensor condition or safety limit. It does not detail blocking behavior or side effects, but the core stop behavior is disclosed beyond what annotations provide.

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 or repetition. Every word contributes to meaning, and it clearly identifies the operation and termination criteria.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and non-trivial configuration (sensor type, threshold, condition, multiple motor ports/powers, safety limits), this description is too thin. It fails to convey how parameters relate to each other or what a successful invocation requires.

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 mentions only broad concepts like 'sensor condition' and 'safety limit.' It does not explain how ports, powers, brake, regulated, threshold, condition, or timeout interact, leaving the agent to infer all parameter semantics from schema enums and defaults.

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 action ('Run a motor group') and a clear termination condition ('until a sensor condition or safety limit'). It distinguishes this from simple run_motors by emphasizing the stop condition, and from run_motor_until_sensor by using 'motor group' (plural).

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 phrase 'until a sensor condition or safety limit' clearly implies when this tool should be used: when motors must run until a sensor triggers or a safety limit is reached. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is clear and not misleading.

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