list_motors

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but provides no additional context such as pagination, ordering, authentication needs, or side effects. It is not misleading but is minimal, lacking any behavioral detail beyond the action itself.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, object, context, and optional filter without any redundant words. Every part contributes meaning, and it is appropriately concise.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers the core function. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context that would make it fully self-sufficient. It is adequate but has clear gaps in when-to-use and behavior disclosure, so it earns a mid-range score.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does mention 'kind' as an optional filter, providing semantic value beyond the schema's plain enum. However, it does not describe 'plant_id' at all, though that is partially inferable from 'at a plant.' The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema 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 a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('motors') within a context ('at a plant'), and mentions an optional filter ('by kind'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_plants, list_silos, and trigger_motor_action, which operate on different entities or actions.

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 description gives a clear context (motors at a plant, optionally filtered by kind) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is implied rather than explicitly articulated, so it earns a mid-range score.

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