get_motor_output_limit

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It specifies the returned value's type ([UINT8]) and default (100), adding transparency beyond the empty schema. However, it does not clarify that this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get') or describe any potential side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, usage scenario, and data format. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy or unnecessary details. Ideal for a simple getter.

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 parameter-less getter with no output schema, the description covers the value's purpose, when to use it, and its type/default. It lacks a note that 100% means no limit, but this is reasonable given the default. Overall sufficiently 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?

Schema has zero parameters, so description need not explain params. Baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of the output (caps per-motor output) and providing the default value, making the data more understandable.

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 starts with 'Get motor_output_limit' which is slightly tautological, but immediately clarifies purpose with 'Caps per-motor output as a percentage.' It clearly identifies what value is retrieved and its function, distinguishing it from other getters through specificity.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use when running higher cell count than motors are rated for' with a concrete example (6S on 4S build → ~66%). Does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the guidance is strong and actionable.

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