cycle_gripper

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, non-idempotent and open-world, so the safety bar is lower; the description adds the useful detail that endpoints are operator-validated and calibrated. It says nothing, however, about what physical risk a 1-5 cycle burst carries, what happens on failure mid-cycle, or whether the gripper ends open or closed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the range constraint sits right next to the parameter it constrains.

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 destructive physical-motion tool with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description should disclose end state, failure behavior, or safety preconditions. The calibrated-endpoint note helps but leaves meaningful 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden; it does supply the crucial 1-5 range that the schema lacks. It omits the unit of 'times' interpretation for an out-of-range value and any error behavior, so compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific compound verb and resource: opening then closing the gripper N times with calibrated endpoints. This clearly sets it apart from the single-shot open_gripper and close_gripper siblings by implication, though it never names them explicitly.

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 cycling use case is implied by 'a specified number of times', but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over calling open_gripper/close_gripper repeatedly, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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