Get robot manifest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the response contains (motors, modules, display), which partly substitutes for the missing output schema, but it says nothing about whether this is static configuration versus live state, or how it differs from live sensor reads.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the identifying spec ('ai-cartridge/body-v1') is front-loaded. The only weakness is that it reads as a label rather than a statement of behavior.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it only gestures at the contents without describing structure or what 'manifest' fields an agent will get back. Adequate to identify the tool, thin for deciding what to do with the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 resource ('Robot Capability Manifest (ai-cartridge/body-v1)') and enumerates its contents (motors, sensor modules, display), so an agent can infer it returns a static capability listing. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and it never contrasts itself with siblings like list_sensors or get_sensor_map that touch the same domain.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent must infer on its own whether this is the right call versus get_observation, read_sensors, or list_sensors.

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