zero_sensor_reference

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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety or state-change context, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a state change—setting a zero reference—but does not disclose whether this overwrites an existing reference, persists across programs, affects only the selected sensor, or triggers any feedback. No contradiction exists, but the behavioral picture is minimal.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The key action ('Capture... as relative zero') is front-loaded, and the sentence is appropriately sized for a tool with only two enum-constrained parameters.

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 description is sufficient to guess the basic action and parameters, but it does not explain the effect on later relative reads or what the caller should expect in return. Since there is no output schema and no annotations describing behavior, a brief note about the calibration effect would make this complete for an agent deciding whether to call it before read_sensor_relative.

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. It clarifies that sensor_type refers to light, color-intensity, or ultrasonic measurements and that the value is the current reading, but it adds nothing about the port parameter beyond the schema's title and enum. Thus only one of two parameters gains meaningful context.

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 clear verb ('Capture') and resource ('current light, color-intensity, or ultrasonic value') and states the transformation ('as relative zero'). It is distinguishable from tools like zero_motor_position by the sensor-specific focus, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from read_sensor_relative or read_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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_sensor_relative, read_sensor_raw, or zero_motor_position. The likely prerequisite relationship to relative sensor readings is only implied by the phrase 'relative zero' and is not explicitly stated.

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