get_robot_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses that capability tiers and safety flags gate other operations, which is useful behavioral context. However, it never states that the call is read-only and side-effect free, nor whether results are cached or live, leaving the safety profile implicit in the 'get_' prefix.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first front-loads the data inventory, the second delivers the one actionable directive. Nothing is repeated from schema or annotations, and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and with no parameters the description only needs purpose and routing context, which it supplies. The remaining gap is distinguishing this discovery call from get_status and get_settings, which the agent must still infer.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed to obtain the full robot profile.

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 enumerates the resource contents precisely (identity, transport, login state, capability tiers, safety flags), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It lacks a verb and never contrasts itself with near-siblings like get_status or get_settings, which likely overlap on state reporting.

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?

"Call this first to see what is allowed" gives an explicit ordering rule and a reason to call it, which is genuine usage guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to call it (e.g., after a get_status call).

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