noetix_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns a structured payload ('success, message, and data') and that the 'info' operation is a read-style lookup; however, it does not explicitly state side effects, limits, or prerequisites, though this appears to be a simple information retrieval 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 short, front-loaded with the tool's subject, and clearly separated into 'Operations' and 'Returns' sections. Every line carries essential information without any fluff or unnecessary repetition.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and a simple return payload, the description covers the necessary operational details: the default operation and the shape of the response. Its only minor gap is not stating explicitly that 'info' is the sole supported operation, but the format implies it.

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 only defines an optional `operation` property with a default and no per-property description, but the description explains that 'info' returns the relevant fields and that it is the default. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage by giving the parameter real meaning.

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 identifies the exact resource (Noetix Bumi humanoid robot) and a specific verb ('return') along with the returned content (features, specs, GitHub and docs links). It clearly communicates the tool's purpose without being confused with the listed sibling tools.

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 description implies this tool should be used when an agent needs Noetix robot specifications, features, or SDK/docs links, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or how it compares to the many sibling robotics tools. The usage context is present but left mostly to inference.

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