sphero-rvr-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.2.5
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct actions or sensors, but there is some overlap: multiple battery getters (status, voltage, voltage_state, thresholds) and get_sensor_data could be seen as a catch-all that duplicates specific getters. The test tools and connect_simple/connect add minor confusion, but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
Naming Consistency4/5The majority of tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_*, set_*, start_*, stop_*, drive_*). However, there are deviations like test_immediate_return, test_slow_return, connect_simple, emergency_stop, clear_emergency_stop, and turn_leds_off which break the pattern slightly.
Tool Count2/5With 55 tools, the server is well beyond the typical 3-15 range and even exceeds the 25+ threshold. The surface is bloated with redundant test utilities and multiple specialized getters that could be consolidated, making it overwhelming for agents.
Completeness4/5The toolset covers core robot operations: connection, driving, LEDs, sensors, IR, battery, safety, and system info. Notable gaps include a direct position getter (only reset_locator and encoder counts) and no gyroscope/accelerometer readings, but the domain is largely covered.
Average 3.1/5 across 55 of 55 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Send IR message' without explaining whether this is a one-time transmission, whether it requires an established connection, what side effects it has, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. The single sentence 'Send IR message' adds no value beyond the tool name, so it does not 'earn its place'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to convey essential context such as supported IR code formats, required system state (e.g., broadcasting enabled), or the meaning of the output. The description is inadequate for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the 'code' or 'strength' parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent without any understanding of what values are valid or how they affect behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Send IR message' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'send_ir_message'. It names the action and resource but adds no specificity about the type of IR message, the meaning of 'code', or how this differs from sibling tools like start_ir_broadcasting or start_ir_following.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or differentiation from the many IR-related sibling tools (e.g., get_ir_readings, start_ir_broadcasting).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects, persistence, or required setup. It fails to do so, only restating the name without explaining what enabling color detection involves, what happens on success/failure, or any other behavioral consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise in length but is under-specified rather than effectively concise. The single sentence adds no value beyond the tool name and fails to earn its place in the API surface.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool being simple with one parameter and an output schema, the description does not explain return values, side effects, or prerequisites. An AI agent invoking this tool would not know what to expect or how to use it effectively. The description is minimally present but leaves clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines a single parameter 'enabled' with a default of true and no schema description. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent without information about how to disable color detection or what the boolean value controls. With 0% schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but did not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Enable color detection.' is essentially a direct restatement of the tool name 'enable_color_detection' with underscores replaced by spaces. It provides no additional specificity or distinguishing context relative to sibling tools like 'get_color_detection' or 'start_sensor_streaming'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, connection requirements, or related tools. The description simply states the action without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any side effects, return format, or dependencies. The behavior of 'get' is completely opaque – the agent cannot infer whether this is a read-only operation, whether it blocks, or what it returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. A single sentence that merely repeats the tool name does not earn its place; it provides no value beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (which could explain return values), the description lacks essential context: what the tool does exactly, how it relates to 'enable_color_detection', and what the parameter does. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the absence of usage and behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not mention the stabilization_ms parameter at all. Since the schema provides no guidance and the description adds none, the agent has no way to know what this parameter controls or how to use it. Description completely fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get color detection.' restates the tool name almost verbatim, providing only a verb and a resource without specifying what is returned (e.g., detected color value vs. detection state). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'enable_color_detection' or 'get_ambient_light' beyond the verb, so it lacks the scope needed for a clear purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of prerequisites (e.g., whether color detection must be enabled first), when to use this tool versus related tools, or what the stabilization_ms parameter does. The description offers no context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention what the timeout affects, whether it is persistent, or any side effects. 'Set command timeout' reveals nothing beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but under-specified; the single sentence adds no value beyond the tool name. The brevity is not beneficial because it omits essential context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with one undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what a command timeout is, what units timeout_seconds uses, or what happens when it is set. The output schema does not compensate for this lack of fundamental context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the timeout_seconds parameter at all. It adds no meaning to the bare schema property, leaving units, allowed range, and effect entirely unspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a direct restatement of the tool name with spaces, providing no additional specificity about what the command timeout controls or how it differs from sibling tools. It is a tautology rather than a clarifying statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives might be more appropriate. The description merely states the action without any contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no description of behavior, the agent gets no information about whether the motion persists, safety limits, or response format. The description only says 'Drive with RC controls' and provides zero transparency 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, but this conciseness sacrifices substance. However, as a purely structural assessment, it is appropriately brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 2 required numeric parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description is far too minimal. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what happens after the command is issued, or how it compares to the many drive-related sibling tools. This is inadequate for an agent to safely operate the robot.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. The parameter names (linear_velocity, yaw_velocity) are self-explanatory at a basic level, but no units, sign conventions, ranges, or interaction between the two velocities are described. 'RC controls' is a vague hint that does not add real semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Drive with RC controls' merely restates the tool name without elaboration. It does not explain what RC controls means or differentiate it from sibling tools like drive_tank or drive_with_heading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as drive_tank, drive_with_heading, drive_forward, or drive_backward. The description gives no context for choosing drive_rc over other drive modes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Start sensor streaming' without mentioning whether this blocks, how streaming is delivered, or if it requires an active connection. This is a significant omission for a state-changing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, it sacrifices meaningful content for brevity. It reads more like an under-specified label than a helpful tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's two parameters, existence of an output schema, and lack of annotations, this description is grossly insufficient. It provides no details on return values, sensor data format, streaming lifecycle, or interval semantics, making it hard for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. The required 'sensors' array and optional 'interval_ms' are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their format and effect.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'start' and resource 'sensor streaming', which identifies the action. However, it lacks specificity about what 'sensor streaming' means or how it differs from related tools like get_sensor_data. It is not tautological but is vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stop_sensor_streaming or get_sensor_data. The description does not mention prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get safety status' — no mention of whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects exist, error behavior, or what 'safety status' actually encompasses. This is a significant omission for a tool that presumably reports safety-critical state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and free of fluff, but it is under-specified. It essentially restates the tool name and provides no added informative content, so it does not earn its place as a helpful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists and there are no parameters, the description lacks essential context about what safety status means, how it differs from other getters, or any practical use guidance. It is minimally complete but fails to provide enough context for an agent to confidently use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing about parameters, but there is nothing to add. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4 per the rubric.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get safety status' directly restates the tool name ('get_safety_status'), adding no new information. It does not distinguish this from sibling status getters like 'get_connection_status' or 'get_battery_status', which also have similar 'Get X status' patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection among many similar status-oriented sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no behavioral details, the description fails to disclose any side effects, preconditions, or implications of stopping IR evading. It is a bare command with zero transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence but under-specified, lacking sufficient information to be useful. It is not appropriately sized for the agent's needs, similar to a placeholder.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and minimal description, the tool's purpose and context are not fully explained. Even though an output schema exists, the description doesn't clarify the action or distinguish it from related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers them. Although the description adds no parameter details, none are needed; baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop IR evading behavior' restates the tool name without elaboration, making it a tautology. It doesn't clarify what 'IR evading' is or distinguish it from sibling tools like stop_ir_following.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, such as after starting IR evading or as opposed to other stop commands. The description offers no context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Emergency stop.' It fails to explain what happens (e.g., whether it latches, stops all motors, requires a reset), what the side effects are, or any safety implications. This is a significant transparency gap for a safety-critical tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but it is under-specification rather than concise. It uses one word that repeats the tool name, providing no additional value. While brevity is good, this lacks meaningful content and fails to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's safety-critical nature and the presence of sibling tools like 'stop' and 'clear_emergency_stop', the description is insufficient. It does not explain the emergency behavior, how it differs from a normal stop, or whether any reset is needed. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for this missing context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none. According to the baseline rule, 0 params earns a 4, and there is no further parameter information to add.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Emergency stop.' essentially restates the tool name without specifying the resource or scope (what is stopped, e.g., all motors, robot). It is a tautology that adds no new information beyond the name itself, so it does not clarify the exact function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 the sibling 'stop' or how it relates to 'clear_emergency_stop'. The description gives no context for selection, leaving the agent without direction on choosing this over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only states 'Get battery status' with no mention of behavior, return format, or side effects. It provides no transparency beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is a single short phrase, but it is under-specified and redundant with the tool name. Rather than being appropriately compact, it omits essential context and fails to earn its place as a useful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, but the description fails to clarify what 'battery status' includes or how it differs from sibling battery tools. An agent cannot reliably choose this tool based solely on the description, leaving the definition incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and a fully covered empty schema, so no parameter description is needed. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get battery status' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'get_battery_status' with no additional detail. It does not differentiate from sibling tools such as get_battery_voltage, get_battery_voltage_state, or get_battery_thresholds, and uses the vague term 'status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_battery_voltage or get_battery_thresholds. The description offers no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but 'Reset yaw.' discloses no behavioral traits such as what the reset does to the robot's state, whether it requires the robot to be stationary, or what output to expect. It is entirely uninformative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, with no filler. However, it is under-specified; still, for conciseness alone it is minimal and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no params, no annotations), but the description lacks any context about the reset behavior, effects on the robot's navigation, or relationship to other reset tools. An agent would not know when or why to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the schema requires no clarification. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, earning a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reset yaw.' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, making it a tautology. It provides no additional detail about the action or context, so it fails to add value beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 or how it relates to siblings like reset_locator or pivot. The description is purely definitional and offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states that it sets a specific LED group. It does not disclose whether it affects only that group, whether it reverses previous settings, or any other side effects. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified to the point of being minimally useful. It is concise but lacks essential details, so it doesn't fully earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, this description is insufficient. An output schema exists but does not help the agent understand input semantics or side effects. The description is complete enough only for a trivial tool, but this is not one.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It only references 'LED group' (led_group) but says nothing about red, green, or blue parameters, their ranges, or how they combine. The agent must guess what values to supply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('specific LED group'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_all_leds and turn_leds_off. However, it doesn't explicitly name the RGB parameters, so it's slightly less specific than it could be.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_all_leds or turn_leds_off. There is no hint about contexts, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it merely restates the tool's purpose. It doesn't disclose whether the limit persists, its effect on subsequent commands, valid ranges, or potential errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately short and front-loaded, but it provides no additional value beyond the tool name. While concise, the sentence doesn't earn its place due to lack of informative content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, the description is too sparse. It lacks essential context about the parameter and behavioral effects. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for missing parameter semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description fails to explain max_speed_percent. No units, range, or interpretation is provided, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'set' and a clear resource 'speed limit', which distinguishes it from driving and sensor siblings. It clearly indicates an action to configure a speed limit, though it doesn't specify the scope of the limit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., set before driving), exclusions, or relationships with other drive-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a state-changing operation ('set') but doesn't explain the effect on all LEDs (e.g., whether they all go to the same color), any side effects, or output behavior. This is minimal insight beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one short sentence—and front-loads the core action. While it's not verbose, it is so brief that it sacrifices valuable information, but for pure conciseness it scores well.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (three integers), a short description might suffice, but the complete lack of usage guidance, parameter details, and behavioral context makes it incomplete. The existence of an output schema doesn't compensate for missing input semantics and tool-selection guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't explain the 'red', 'green', and 'blue' parameters beyond their obvious color names. No ranges, units, or meaning (e.g., 0-255) are provided, so the description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set all LEDs.' clearly states the action (set) and resource (all LEDs), directly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'set_led' which presumably affects a single LED. However, it doesn't specify that it sets them to a particular RGB color, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_led' or 'turn_leds_off'. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, making it unclear how to choose among related LED-control tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'wake it up,' which implies a state change, but it does not address prerequisites, failure modes, side effects, or what happens if already connected. This is minimal disclosure for a connection operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded, easy to parse, and avoids redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two optional parameters and an output schema (though its content is unknown), but the description provides no context on parameter usage, return values, or behavioral caveats. Given the existence of similar connection tools, the description is too sparse to guide correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions for 'baud' or 'port' (0% schema description coverage), and the description does not mention either parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'connect' and the target 'Sphero RVR robot,' with the added detail 'wake it up' to indicate a state change. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'connect_simple,' so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use 'connect' versus 'connect_simple' or other connection-related tools. There are no explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Drive at speed toward heading,' but nothing about how the heading is interpreted, whether reverse changes direction, safety implications, or what happens when the target is reached. This is insufficient for a robot control command.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence), but it lacks structure and omits critical details. It is not a well-organized explanation that front-loads the most important information; it merely echoes the tool name and schema property names.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's purpose (robot driving) and the existence of many sibling driving tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain coordinate frames, parameter units, or behavior when obstacles are encountered. The output schema exists, but that does not compensate for missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It references 'speed' and 'heading' but adds no meaning beyond the property names—units, ranges, and the 'reverse' parameter are left unexplained. The description barely goes beyond the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a verb ('Drive') and a resource ('heading'), indicating a driving command that uses speed and heading. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like drive_tank, drive_forward, or pivot, since the semantics of 'heading' (absolute vs relative, units) are not explained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as drive_tank or drive_forward. The description implies the use case (drive toward a heading) but does not explicitly state context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's name and gives no information about side effects, state changes, safety, or what 'resetting' actually does.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It adds no value beyond the tool name and fails to include useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the locator is or under what circumstances resetting it is appropriate. This leaves the tool's behavior ambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reset locator' clearly identifies the action (reset) and the target (locator), making the basic purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like reset_yaw through the specific resource, though it lacks any scope or detail about what the locator is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to other reset or locator-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Start IR broadcasting' without explaining the persistent nature, how to stop, or what the far_code and near_code parameters control. This is a significant omission for a state-changing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It gets to the point, though it is too brief to be fully useful. The structure is simple and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two required parameters and a start/stop semantic, but the description provides no context about the IR codes, the duration of broadcasting, or how to end it. Even though an output schema exists, the description remains incomplete for proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the meaning or purpose of far_code and near_code. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent is left entirely without parameter semantics, which is critical for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Start' and the resource 'IR broadcasting,' which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like send_ir_message or start_ir_following, so it's clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Drive with tank controls,' giving no information about how the velocities behave (continuous vs. one-shot), units, ranges, or safety implications. This is minimal but slightly better than a pure tautology.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large number of drive-related tools and the absence of annotations or parameter descriptions, this extremely brief description is insufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool. It lacks context on return values, parameter ranges, and how it compares to similar drive commands.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly explain the parameters, but the phrase 'tank controls' hints that left_velocity and right_velocity are independent drive speeds. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but no additional meaning is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Drive with tank controls' clearly states a verb (drive) and a specific mechanism (tank controls), which implies independent left/right velocity control. This differentiates it from sibling tools like drive_with_heading or drive_rc, though it does not explicitly name them or spell out the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many driving-related siblings (e.g., drive_rc, pivot, drive_forward). It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the toggle action. It does not disclose side effects, persistence, or whether disabling also clears existing notifications. This is minimal for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or repetition. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple toggle with an output schema, the description is minimal but fails to differentiate from the similar sibling tool or provide usage context. The lack of guidance on when to enable vs disable or how this relates to stall notifications leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one optional boolean with 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Enable or disable' effectively explains the parameter's meaning. However, it does not mention the default behavior when the parameter is omitted, which the schema defines as true.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool toggles motor fault detection notifications, using specific verb 'Enable or disable'. It distinguishes from unrelated tools but not from the similar sibling 'enable_motor_stall_notify', which limits full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool vs alternatives like motor stall notifications. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or why one would enable/disable fault notifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Start evading,' but does not explain what evading entails, whether it involves motor actions, sensor feedback, or IR codes, or whether it is a blocking call. The behavior after calling this tool is completely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-formed sentence that directly states the purpose with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool starts an evasion behavior, but the description lacks important context such as what evading means, how it interacts with IR broadcasting, and how the distance codes are used. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the behavioral context is missing. Given no annotations, the description is insufficient for fully understanding the tool's operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (far_code, near_code) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. No compensation needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Start evading') and the target ('an IR-broadcasting robot'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like start_ir_following (evade vs. follow) and start_ir_broadcasting (evade vs. broadcast), though the phrase 'evading an IR-broadcasting robot' is slightly awkward and could be interpreted as the robot evading rather than the user's bot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as start_ir_following, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., must another robot be broadcasting IR?). No exclusions or context are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. But it only states 'Stop RVR' without explaining what happens when the robot stops, whether it is a graceful halt, or how it relates to emergency stop. This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
'Stop RVR.' is a two-word sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a simple stop command, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and the presence of multiple stop-related siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the type of stop, whether it clears emergency state, or what the output schema contains (though output schema is present). The description adds minimal value beyond the name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema confirms no parameters exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop RVR.' clearly states the action and the resource, using a specific verb. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'emergency_stop', which also stops the robot, so it lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'emergency_stop' or 'stop_sensor_streaming'. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It merely states the action without disclosing side effects such as stopping sensor streaming, releasing resources, or whether disconnection is safe to call repeatedly, which is essential for a connection-management operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately minimal for a tool with no parameters and a straightforward purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool, the description is very sparse. Although an output schema exists, the description lacks critical behavioral context such as what happens to active operations or whether the connection is closed permanently. It does not mention related tools like connect or get_connection_status, leaving the overall workflow incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty with no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4; the description adds no parameter meaning, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Disconnect from RVR.' is a clear imperative verb + resource, indicating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools, as no other tool explicitly disconnects, though it is terse and doesn't elaborate on the scope or meaning of disconnection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as stop or connect. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must be connected) or closing statements, leaving the agent to infer suitable conditions from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a specific non-obvious behavior: sensor queries use blocking serial I/O and 'may block the event loop briefly'. With no annotations to rely on, this adds valuable context about performance impact and safety of calling this tool in time-sensitive situations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and adds one key behavioral note, every word earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the tool description leaves critical gaps: the 'sensors' parameter is unexplained, and there is no context on how this relates to streaming APIs or which sensor identifiers to use. The blocking warning is useful but insufficient to make the tool self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'sensors' parameter at all. The parameter is an array of untyped items with a default of null, leaving the agent guessing what strings or objects to pass. The description must compensate for this ambiguity but completely fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get sensor data' clearly identifies a getter operation on sensor resources. However, it does not differentiate this tool from several sibling tools such as get_ambient_light, get_temperature, or start_sensor_streaming, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like start_sensor_streaming or specific sensor getters. The only additional note is a behavioral warning about blocking I/O, which is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for explaining side effects and behavior. It only states the action without detailing what following entails, how IR codes are used, or whether the robot will move, which is a significant gap for a control command.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, entirely front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the action without unnecessary detail, earning a perfect conciseness score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, with full parameter schema and an output schema, but the description omits usage context and behavioral details. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent without guidance on when to use it versus other IR-related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both far_code and near_code clearly described as 'IR code to follow when far (0-7)' and 'IR code to follow when near (0-7)'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Start following') and resource ('IR-broadcasting robot'), making the core purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like start_ir_broadcasting and stop_ir_following, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like start_ir_evading or stop_ir_following, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (toggling notifications) but does not disclose any side effects, persistence, connection requirements, or reversibility. The description adds little beyond what the tool name implies, lacking transparent context about the operation's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that delivers the core purpose without any fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded, capturing the essential action efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one boolean parameter and an output schema. The description adequately states the basic purpose, but it lacks usage context, parameter details, and behavioral caveats. Given the lack of annotations and usage guidelines, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate for a simple toggle operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one boolean parameter 'enabled' with a default of true, and schema coverage is 0%. The description's phrase 'enable or disable' implies a boolean toggle, but it does not explicitly name the parameter, explain the default behavior, or describe how the input maps to the action. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: enabling or disabling motor stall detection notifications. It uses a specific verb ('enable or disable') and resource ('motor stall detection notifications'), which distinguishes it from the similar sibling 'enable_motor_fault_notify' by focusing on 'stall' rather than 'fault'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or mention the sibling tool 'enable_motor_fault_notify' as a related but distinct option. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Clear emergency stop' without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it resets all safety conditions, requires authentication, or has side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a safety-related operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a three-word phrase. It is front-loaded and without waste. However, it is arguably too terse, lacking any additional context that might be helpful, though this is balanced by its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool has an output schema, the description does not explain what happens after clearing, what the output represents, or how this relates to emergency_stop. Given the presence of sibling tools and the safety-critical nature, the description is incomplete in contextual guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and the empty schema is fully consistent with the action being a parameterless command.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clear emergency stop' uses a specific verb ('clear') and a specific resource ('emergency stop'), clearly identifying the action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'emergency_stop' and 'stop' by indicating a reset/clearing operation rather than activation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or the relationship to 'emergency_stop'. The usage is only implied by the name, but the description itself does not state when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not specify whether the tool establishes a persistent connection, merely pings, or what side effects occur. The term 'connect test' is ambiguous about state changes and return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence conveys the core purpose and parameterization state. There is no fluff or irrelevant detail, making it extremely concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the low complexity, the description is insufficient: it doesn't explain what a 'connect test' actually does, whether it is a read-only check, or what the output schema contains. The existing output schema provides return structure, but the description still needs to clarify the tool's action to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the empty schema fully documents that. The description reinforces this with 'without parameters', which is redundant but harmless. Since there are no params, the baseline is 4, and the description doesn't need to add more.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'connect test' which clearly indicates a connection verification action, and 'without parameters' differentiates it from the sibling 'connect' tool that likely requires arguments. However, it doesn't name the resource explicitly (e.g., robot), which keeps it slightly vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Simple connect test without parameters' implies it is for quick connection checks when no arguments are needed, contrasting with 'connect' indirectly. But there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative comparison, leaving the guidance implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only states the action. It does not mention whether the reading is live or cached, what units are returned, whether sensor streaming must be active, or any potential side effects—though as a getter, risks are minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that immediately states the operation. It is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters, though it could add context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the output schema exists and would document return values, the description lacks essential context for when to use this tool versus related sensor getters. Without annotations or usage guidance, the description is not fully complete for an agent to select it confidently among many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and the description correctly implies none are needed. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not introduce any conflicting or redundant parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get ambient light' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('ambient light'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_temperature and get_sensor_data by naming the exact physical quantity being retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as get_sensor_data, which may also return light readings. The description gives no context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only adds the term 'calibrated', implying accuracy, but says nothing about side effects, error conditions, permissions, or whether a connection is required. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description is minimal and lacks useful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of only six words, conveying the essential information without any fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, placing the key verb 'Get' at the beginning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is adequate. It states the resource and unit, and the output schema presumably describes the return format. However, it lacks any context about typical usage or relation to sibling tools, which would improve completeness despite the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but that is acceptable since there are no parameters to document. The mention of 'volts' pertains to output, not input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get battery voltage in volts (calibrated)' with a specific verb and resource, specifying units and calibration. It distinguishes from similar sibling tools like get_battery_status and get_battery_voltage_state by focusing on the voltage readout in volts, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus get_battery_status, get_battery_voltage_state, or other battery-related tools, nor does it give context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it merely restates the tool name without disclosing read-only behavior, return format, or side effects. 'Get' implies a read, but no explicit behavioral context is added.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, given the large set of sibling status tools, a brief note about what 'connection status' includes would improve completeness, but it is not strictly necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, which warrants a baseline of 4. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description has nothing to add beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get connection status' clearly identifies the resource and action with a specific verb. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'get_battery_status', though the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. Sibling tools include connect/disconnect and other status getters, but the description gives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool 'returns immediately', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not specify potential side effects, return value contents, or safety implications, though for a test tool these may be minimal. The description adds some transparency but is 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence: 'Test tool that returns immediately.' Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the core purpose effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's extremely low complexity (no parameters, simple behavior) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It states the tool's purpose and key behavior. It does not detail return values, but the output schema covers that aspect. The only gap is lack of usage context, but that is addressed under usage_guidelines.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate given there are none. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is assigned for tools with no parameters, and no deduction is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it is a 'test tool' and that it 'returns immediately', indicating its primary function. However, it lacks a specific resource or action beyond returning immediately, making it somewhat vague. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_slow_return', though the 'immediately' hints at a contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The term 'test tool' implies use for testing, but there is no clear context, prerequisites, or exclusion of other tools. This is a minimal implication rather than direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 3-second delay, which is the primary behavioral trait, but does not mention any side effects, return behavior, or whether it blocks. The output schema may cover return values, but additional context would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the essential behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool this would be insufficient, but as a simple test utility with no parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks context about when to use it versus test_immediate_return, which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for no params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies it as a test tool and specifies the 3-second delay, differentiating it from siblings like test_immediate_return. The verb is implicit but the resource and behavior are clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It does not mention that it's for testing delays or contrast with test_immediate_return, leaving usage context ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it merely restates the tool name without adding any side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions. For a state-changing action, the agent doesn't know whether the operation is idempotent, what state it leaves the IR broadcaster in, or if any other IR-related functions are affected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Stop' and immediately states the target resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, achieving excellent conciseness without sacrificing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is extremely simple, with no parameters and a likely straightforward output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks any context about when this tool should be invoked relative to other IR functions, such as whether it only stops broadcasting or also affects IR following/evading. Given the absence of annotations, a bit more context would make it more complete, but it remains minimally viable for a zero-parameter stop action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description meets this baseline by not needing to explain any parameter syntax or semantics. The schema is empty and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related content.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('stop') and a clear resource ('IR broadcasting'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_ir_broadcasting or stop_ir_following. It unambiguously states the tool's primary function and scope, making it easy for an agent to identify the correct action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to other IR-related tools. It doesn't mention that it stops a broadcast started by start_ir_broadcasting, leaving the usage to be inferred solely from the tool name. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, which is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only names the returned state values and gives no details about side effects, error conditions, or read-only nature. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clear sentence with high information density. It is well-structured with the verb first and the possible values in parentheses. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless getter with an output schema, this description is largely sufficient. It states what is returned and the possible values. Lacks context about when the state might be relevant, but overall complete for its scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and fully covers the parameter space. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the battery voltage state, listing possible values (ok/low/critical). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_battery_voltage and get_battery_status, which likely return raw values or more detailed status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as get_battery_voltage or get_battery_status. There is no mention of preferred use cases, exclusions, or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description shoulders the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but no details are given about units, range, or whether a connection is required. Minimal additional transparency is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that includes the key detail about left and right counts. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter getter with an output schema (not shown), the description is sufficient for identifying the tool's purpose. However, it lacks any behavioral context such as whether the counts are cumulative or since last reset, which could be relevant for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions the return contents (left and right tick counts), which aligns with the expected output and needs no further schema-based clarification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('wheel encoder tick counts') with clarification that it refers to left and right. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling sensor getters like get_sensor_data or get_ambient_light.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 a simple getter it may be implied, but there is no explicit mention of prerequisites, connection state, or comparison with get_sensor_data which might also provide encoder data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the tool's name without adding details about side effects, permissions, or return behavior. For a simple getter, one might expect at least a note that it is read-only and returns the MAC address, but that is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is entirely to the point. No filler words or redundant information. It earns its place by delivering the core purpose in five words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, has output schema), the description is adequate. The output schema likely documents the return value, so the description need not explain that. However, it lacks any mention of prerequisites or context, but for a basic getter this is not a significant gap. A 4 is appropriate because it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage with no properties to describe. The description doesn't need to compensate for parameter documentation. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema and parameter count make the absence of additional parameter info acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Bluetooth MAC address' clearly states a specific verb and resource, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_firmware_version or get_battery_status by specifying the exact data being retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While among many get_* tools, it gives no context or exclusions. The user is left to infer that this is for reading the Bluetooth MAC address, but no explicit conditions or scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that readings are fetched; it does not mention whether this is a passive read, whether it requires an active connection, or any side effects. The lack of such context leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the output schema and zero parameters simplify the tool, the description does not specify prerequisites (e.g., whether the robot must be connected) or articulate the distinction from related sensor tools. It is adequate but leaves room for contextual guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description correctly omits parameter details. The baseline is 4; no additional parameter information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (get), the resource (IR sensor readings), and enumerates all four sensor positions. It distinguishes itself from generic sensor tools like get_sensor_data by specifying exactly which readings are retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving the four IR readings, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_sensor_data or get_ambient_light. No exclusions or alternative guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that the tool returns identifier strings for both processors, which implies a read-only behavior, but it does not disclose details such as whether this could fail, return null, or have side effects. The description is mildly transparent but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only getter, the description is nearly complete. An output schema exists, so return format details are likely covered there. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention that no input is required and no side effects occur, but these are implied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to document. The description correctly identifies the only meaningful semantic: it returns identifiers for both processors, which adds clarity beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('processor identifier strings for both processors'). It is clear about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_firmware_version or get_mac_address, which are similarly named read-only info getters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context implies this is a simple read-only status query, similar to many sibling getter tools, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Stop IR following behavior' essentially restates the tool name and does not add context about safety, reversibility, whether the robot halts immediately, or what happens if the behavior isn't active. It lacks detail beyond the literal action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a parameterless stop command.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple stop command with no parameters and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It clearly states the action, and an output schema exists to handle return values. However, it lacks any additional context about usage scenarios or side effects, which might be expected given the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, so the baseline per instructions is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none; the schema is already fully covered (100%).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop IR following behavior' uses a specific verb ('stop') and identifies the precise resource ('IR following behavior'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'stop' (general stop) and 'stop_ir_evading' (stopping evasion).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage as the counterpart to 'start_ir_following' but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'stop' or 'stop_ir_evading'. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, making the usage guidelines implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It adds context about using the position controller for accurate movement, which is useful, but it does not disclose behaviors such as blocking until completion, error conditions, or what happens if the robot encounters an obstacle.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and a secondary clause explaining the movement method. No redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with a clear purpose and full schema coverage. The description plus schema sufficiently explain the tool for a simple distance-based movement, though it lacks warnings about physical movement or connection prerequisites. Given the output schema exists, this is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'distance' and 'speed' already described. The description repeats that distance is in meters but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Drive backward a specified distance in meters', specifying the verb (drive), direction (backward), and metric (distance in meters). This distinguishes it from siblings like drive_forward and pivot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence 'Uses RVR's internal position controller for accurate movement' implies use when precise distance control is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of RVR's internal position controller, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not mention potential side effects, behavior with invalid parameters (e.g., negative distance), or environmental interactions. It provides minimal extra context 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every word adds value, no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple movement tool, the description covers the purpose and a key aspect (position controller). Given that an output schema exists and sibling tools are clear, it is sufficiently complete. It lacks only minor edge-case context like negative distance handling, but that is not critical for understanding the tool's main function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers both parameters (distance and speed) with descriptions and defaults, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Drive forward a specified distance in meters') with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the internal position controller, distinguishing it from direction-based siblings like drive_backward and pivot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for precise, distance-controlled forward movement ('accurate movement'), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or any exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'use this instead of drive_tank for straight lines'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the version is for both processors but does not mention side effects, safety, or return structure beyond the format. For a read-only operation, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, focused sentence that avoids redundancy and front-loads the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no params and an output schema exists. The description states the return format and processor scope, which is sufficient for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema implicitly covers everything. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed; per the baseline, a 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Get' and resource 'firmware version' clearly state the action and object. 'for both processors' adds scope, distinguishing it from related getters like get_board_revision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It is a simple getter, but the description does not explicitly state when it should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention calibration requirements for accurate heading, potential side effects, or error conditions. It only lists outputs, which falls short of full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs without any unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is appropriately complete for a simple, parameterless getter. It covers the key outputs, and the existence of an output schema likely documents return structure. However, it omits the dependency on calibration for heading accuracy, which could be useful given the sibling calibrate_magnetometer tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related information, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving magnetometer X, Y, Z readings along with heading and cardinal direction. It distinguishes itself from sibling sensor getters and from calibrate_magnetometer by specifying the magnetometer and its output components.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when magnetometer readings are needed, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or prerequisites like calibration are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the output values and units (Celsius), implying a read-only operation, but does not mention prerequisites like connection state or potential failure modes. It is not misleading but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then a clear list of outputs. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless getter with an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and return values. There are no hidden parameters or nested objects. It is completely adequate for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description still adds value by enumerating the exact return names, which aligns with an intuitive understanding of the tool. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no further information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('temperature sensor readings') and specifies the three return values (left_motor, right_motor, nordic_die). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from other sensor tools like get_ambient_light or get_motor_thermal_protection_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as get_sensor_data or get_motor_thermal_protection_status. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that all LEDs are turned off (adding scope beyond the tool name), but discloses no other behavioral traits such as effects on existing LED states or potential side effects. It is minimally satisfactory but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter command, the description fully explains what the tool does. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. It is complete for selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the description adds no parameter details. Per the rubric, 0 params merits a baseline of 4, which is appropriate here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Turn off') and resource ('all LEDs'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like set_led or set_all_leds. It unambiguously states the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as set_all_leds. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior on its own. It clearly indicates a read-only operation via the verb 'Get', but does not disclose details like units, error behavior, or connectivity requirements. It is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what is needed without any wasted words. It names the resource and its components efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with zero parameters and an output schema present, the description is sufficient. It states what the tool returns (thresholds) without needing to explain return values or parameters. Slightly more context about units or prerequisites could be added, but it is not essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since the input schema is empty.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'battery voltage thresholds' and parenthetically lists the components (critical, low, hysteresis). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_battery_voltage and get_battery_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance or mention of alternatives. It does not contrast with get_battery_voltage or get_battery_voltage_state, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Check if motor fault is currently active' implies a non-mutating read, but it does not explicitly disclose whether there are side effects, what happens when a fault is present, or whether the tool requires any state (e.g., motor fault detection enabled). It is not misleading but is sparse on behavior beyond the literal check.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the operation and target. There is no redundant information or filler, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter getter with an output schema available, the description is sufficiently complete. It states exactly what is checked and implies a boolean or status result. It does not elaborate on edge cases or related tools, but the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema reduce the need for additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object with 100% schema description coverage. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter detail because none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check if motor fault is currently active' uses a specific verb ('check') and clearly identifies the resource (motor fault) and the exact scope (currently active). It also reads as a getter, which distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like enable_motor_fault_notify or emergency_stop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: use this tool to check the current motor fault state. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_motor_thermal_protection_status or get_safety_status, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds 'Uses internal heading control for accurate turning,' which is helpful, but it does not mention blocking behavior, completion conditions, or edge cases like overshoot or repeated turns. It lacks depth for a movement command.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and then add the key differentiator (no forward motion) and a technical detail (heading control). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a relatively simple movement tool, the description provides enough context for selection and invocation. It covers the action, the effect, and a technical behavior. While it doesn't address prerequisites like connection state or potential errors, the output schema and overall context likely cover those, and the description is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for 'degrees' (positive/negative meaning) and 'speed' (range and default). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond repeating that degrees are specified. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Pivot (turn in place) by a specified number of degrees' and explicitly notes 'Rotates the RVR without forward motion.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'without forward motion' clause distinguishes it from drive-related sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: use when you need a pure in-place rotation, as opposed to moving turns. It clarifies the behavior ('without forward motion') but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing any behavioral details such as idempotency, what happens if streaming is not active, or guarantees about the data stream being terminated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no parameters and a simple, single action, the description is sufficient for most use cases. However, it lacks mention of preconditions (e.g., streaming must be active) or edge cases, which would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema shows an empty object, so there is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop sensor streaming' uses a specific verb ('stop') and a clear resource ('sensor streaming'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'start_sensor_streaming' and 'get_sensor_data'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is clear: call this tool to halt ongoing sensor streaming. Since there is no alternative for stopping, explicit alternatives are unnecessary, but the description does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., no effect if not streaming).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but there is no additional context about possible null returns, error conditions, or device connection requirements. For a simple getter, this is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that says precisely what the tool does without unnecessary words or repetition. It earns its place perfectly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless getter with an output schema present, the description is complete. The output schema likely specifies the return value, so the description does not need to explain return format. The tool's simplicity means no further context is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and the schema confirms this, so no additional parameter semantics are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('product SKU string'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from all siblings, as no other sibling tool mentions SKU.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied: use this tool when you need the product SKU string. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or comparison to alternatives, though none of the siblings appear to provide SKU data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is async, will notify on completion, and requires rotating the RVR 360 degrees. This adds important behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences, each providing distinct value: the action, the async notification, and the required rotation. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the key workflow: start calibration, expect async notification, and rotate the RVR. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. It could mention prerequisites like flat surface, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple no-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the procedure and async behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Start magnetometer calibration'. It also adds the calibration goal ('calibrate to north'), which distinguishes it from magnetometer reading tools like get_magnetometer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when calibration is needed) but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions. The instruction to 'Rotate the RVR 360 degrees' is usage guidance during operation, not tool-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns milliseconds since power-on and covers both processors. It does not explicitly state side effects, but 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the simplicity of the tool makes this sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and includes essential specifics (milliseconds, power-on, both processors), earning every word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It provides the core semantics (units and scope) needed to understand the tool's behavior without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds contextual meaning by specifying that the output covers both processors, which is useful even though there is no input schema to elaborate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets core uptime in milliseconds since power-on for both processors. It uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('core uptime'), and provides unit/scope details, making it distinct from any sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, but the zero-parameter getter is self-explanatory. Usage is implied by the name and description, which is adequate for a simple status query but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adequately discloses that it is a read operation returning temperature and status, plus defines status code meanings (0=ok, 1=warning, 2=critical). No side effects or additional behavior need disclosure for this simple getter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main verb and resource, then explain the return format and status codes. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter getter with an output schema available, the description is complete. It explains what is returned and the meaning of status values, so an agent can correctly interpret the result without ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter info since none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets motor thermal protection status and returns temperature and status per motor. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_temperature and get_motor_fault_state by focusing specifically on thermal protection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied for a simple status getter, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this over similar tools like get_temperature or get_motor_fault_state. There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and specifies the exact data retrieved (PCB board revision for both processors). No side effects or additional behaviors are hidden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it highly concise and effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. The description fully covers the tool's purpose and scope, making it complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since none exist, and the schema confirms this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get PCB board revision for both processors.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'board revision' and 'both processors', making it unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident. It implies usage when the board revision is needed, but lacks explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jsperson/sphero_rvr_mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server