wait_motors

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

The description discloses the core wait-then-timeout-stop behavior, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it leaves unclear whether stopping always occurs, what 'safely' means, whether braking is applied, and what happens during the wait.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action, but some of its brevity comes at the cost of important behavioral and parameter elaboration.

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 non-read-only tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotation support, this description is too thin. It lacks usage guidance, alternative routing, parameter clarification, and enough behavioral detail for an agent to call it confidently.

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 must compensate, but it barely does. 'Deadline' hints at timeout_seconds and 'motor ports' hints at ports, but brake is entirely unaddressed and no parameter is explicitly explained.

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 ('wait for motor ports to stop') and a secondary action ('stop them safely when the deadline expires'). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from ordinary stop_motors, though it could more explicitly contrast with wait_sensor.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stop_motors, emergency_stop, or wait_sensor. No context, exclusions, or conditions are provided.

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