Robot status

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add beyond that. It does: it discloses that the tool auto-connects if needed and warns that the 'holding' signal relies on onboard AI and is unreliable in dim light — a real behavioral caveat not present in structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the full list of reported fields, then the connection note, then the reliability caveat. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the enumeration is long and reads as a run-on clause rather than tight sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the reported fields. Combined with the connect and reliability notes, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though it omits return format/units.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless snapshot with no configuration to supply.

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?

Names a specific resource (the robot) and enumerates exactly what the status readout covers: battery, heading, position, tilt, motion, sound, kicker holding, and onboard AI vision. This is far more specific than sibling tools like detect_objects or scan_surroundings, letting an agent distinguish it immediately.

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?

Gives explicit operational context ('Connects if needed') and routes to an alternative when the report is unreliable ('often misses a held ball in dim light; use look()'). It stops short of a full when-to-use matrix against every sibling, but the key failure-mode routing is present.

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