Duck telemetry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no side effects are expected. The description goes beyond annotations by adding that the tool is 'cheap' and safe to poll freely, which signals performance characteristics. It also clarifies that the state includes posture modes like upright/sitting/mid-trick, giving useful behavioral context.

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 that front-loads the core purpose, lists concrete return fields, and ends with actionable usage guidance. No words are wasted.

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 no parameters, a readOnly annotation, and an existing output schema, the description provides all necessary context. It tells the agent what the tool returns, that it is low-cost, and implicitly that it should be used for telemetry rather than actions.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly omits parameter details; the baseline of 4 applies because no parameter compensation is needed.

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 identifies the tool as a state-read operation for the robot, listing the specific fields it returns (pose, velocity, active policy, posture status, ball position). This distinguishes it from the sibling action tools like duck_drive and duck_trick, which perform movements rather than report status.

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 'Cheap — poll freely' provides explicit guidance that this tool is safe to call frequently, making its usage context clear. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are all action-oriented, so the intended use case of polling status is well implied.

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