get_robot_mode

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 implies a read-only operation by using 'get', but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or what happens on error (e.g., unreachable robot). This is adequate for a simple status retrieval 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two brief lines with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then clarifies the parameter. It could be more concisely combined into one sentence, but overall it is efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, common operation), the description covers the essential purpose. However, it does not explain what the returned status looks like or provide any usage context, which could be beneficial for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 description adds 'IP: robot address' to explain the single parameter, which gives domain context beyond the schema's bare type 'string'. However, it does not specify format (e.g., IPv4 vs IPv6) or constraints (e.g., must be reachable). With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but could be more explicit.

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 clearly states 'get the running status of a specified IP robot', which specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'running status'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_safety_mode or get_actual_robot_current by focusing on a general mode. However, 'running status' is somewhat vague and does not explicitly define what the output represents.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools. The agent receives no context for choosing between this and related status tools like get_program_state or get_safety_mode.

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