check_dshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and prerequisites. It reveals the combined capture-and-judge behavior but omits any mention of hardware requirements, permissions, or failure handling, leaving a significant transparency gap for a tool combining two operations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key actions and resource, with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 the complexity of a combined capture-and-judge tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the required contract_path, the role of driver/channel/samples/samplerate, or the format of the judgment result, leaving major operational gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is fully responsible for explaining the five parameters, but it only mentions DShot600 and contract without detailing driver, channel, samples, samplerate, or contract_path. This leaves all parameters unspecified and does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states it captures a live DShot600 ESC signal and judges it against a contract, combining two actions in one call. The specific verb+resource ('capture...AND judge...DShot600 ESC signal') distinguishes it from separate capture-only or judge-only sibling tools.

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 'in one call' phrasing implies it is used when both capture and judgment are needed at once, suggesting an alternative to separate operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like judge_contract, though the sibling context provides this implication.

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