get_motor_fault_state

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.