get_motion_sample

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the exact sensor model, the 2-second blocking sample window, and what is returned, but says nothing about permissions, error conditions, or whether the call blocks.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the operation and then the return payload. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still adds value by enumerating them. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'address' parameter and the absence of any behavioral caveats, which leaves the definition only minimally complete.

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 single 'address' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. An agent cannot tell whether it is an I2C address, a device selector, or what happens when it is omitted (default null).

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 names a specific verb (samples) and a precise resource (the Sensortek STK8321 3-axis accelerometer), plus the exact data it yields. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_realtime_vitals or get_daily_activity without needing to name them.

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 call this versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as hardware availability or required permissions. The 2-second sampling window is a behavioral fact, not usage guidance.

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