get_blackbox_disable_motors

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

The description implies a read operation via 'Get', but does not explicitly state it is read-only or safe. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it omits details like side effects or permissions. However, for a simple getter with no parameters, the implication is sufficient, earning a mid-range score.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a bracketed type/default. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is clear. No unnecessary information.

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 output schema, the description provides the data type and default value ('[UINT32, default: OFF]'), which helps an agent understand the return format. It also identifies the specific setting (motor output data). However, it does not explain that the tool returns the current state of that setting, nor does it differentiate the return format from siblings. This is adequate for a simple getter but not fully complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, but the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The mention of data type and default in brackets provides some value beyond the schema.

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 the tool retrieves the 'blackbox_disable_motors' setting, which controls exclusion of motor output data. The verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'motor output data' differentiate it from sibling 'get_blackbox_disable_*' tools that exclude other data types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that it should be used to check the current setting before modifying it with the corresponding 'set_blackbox_disable_motors' tool, nor does it contrast with other blackbox disable getters.

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