test_motor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility—and it delivers. It discloses that the tool drives a live motor output, enforces safety gates (props_removed, confirm, armed check, clamps), and explains side effects (stops on reboot/power loss, always returns to stop). This is exemplary transparency beyond what a schema could convey.

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 well-structured with sections for danger, safety gates, behavioral notes, and args. Every sentence adds essential information—no fluff. The front-loaded warning is appropriate given the danger level.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, this description covers all necessary context: purpose, safety, parameter semantics, behavior, and failure modes. It leaves no critical gap for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: motor is 1-based with others held at stop, throttle_us has units and recommended starting value, duration_s has range, and props_removed/confirm have explicit MUST semantics. This adds meaning far beyond the bare JSON schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Spin ONE motor briefly for a bench test (direction / wiring / response).' It clearly distinguishes this tool's narrow scope from sibling tools like calibrate_accelerometer or set_failsafe, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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?

It clearly states the use case (bench test for direction/wiring) and instructs to keep throttle low for direction checks. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when not to use), but the context is clear enough that an agent would know when to select it.

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