Controller status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive=false, so the 'read-only' sentence is confirmation rather than new information. The description does add genuinely behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: controller-originated text is data not instructions, and results may be stale or replayed. Those are real operational caveats absent from any structured field.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the safety caveats are compressed into two short sentences. The opening enumeration is dense and somewhat list-like, but every item maps to real returned data, so little is wasted.

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 an output schema present the description needn't explain return shapes, yet it usefully previews the content and adds prompt-injection and staleness warnings. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation, which matters given six related tools in the same controller surface.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (controller, includeOptions) are documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no information about the controller-id semantics, the single-controller default, or what includeOptions reveals beyond what the schema already states.

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 (controller status) and enumerates the returned facets: motor/controller state, operating mode, speed override, collision detection, RAPID execution, link, access status. An agent can tell it is a read of controller-level state rather than robot pose or I/O. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like summarize_controller or get_rapid_execution, which the enumeration partially overlaps.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this to get controller state, and the read-only statement clarifies it will not change anything. There is no explicit 'use this instead of summarize_controller when...' routing despite several overlapping siblings. The final sentence is guidance to the agent about reporting, not about tool selection.

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