opentrons_get_robot_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the categories of returned data (connection, configuration, run status), but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. This is a reasonable but not exhaustive disclosure for a status query tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary verb and object list. It contains no fluff, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It enumerates the key status categories. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly say the run status portion is only relevant when runId is provided, but this is easily inferable and not critical.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'runId' with the description 'Run ID (任意)'. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning by referring to '指定されたRun' (specified Run), which is essentially redundant. No additional format or behavior details are provided.

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 uses the specific verb '取得' (retrieve) and clearly enumerates the resources: robot connection status, module/pipette configuration, and current run status. This makes the tool's purpose distinct from sibling tools like opentrons_control_run or opentrons_upload_and_run.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for obtaining status information, but does not state exclusions or contrast with sibling tools. Usage context is only indirectly communicated through the verb 'retrieve'.

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