read_drive_motion_limits

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read. Beyond them, the description adds real behavioral context: the adapter verifies parameter names and formats in real time, and cached motion plans become invalid after a motor-group switch or parameter change. It does not mention timing or failure behavior, but that goes beyond the bar for a read-only 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?

Two short sentences, with the scope statement front-loaded before the caveat. Some terms ('在线额定/最大转速', '速度基准') are compact to the point of ambiguity, but there is no filler.

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?

The output schema and annotations carry the return shape and safety profile, so the description need not restate them. Its main gap is that it completely ignores the transport/port selection, the only real decision an agent must make before calling, which matters given 0% schema coverage.

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% for both parameters (port with default COM7, transport with the selected_tcp/serial enum), and the description explains neither. The mention of 'adapter verifies real-time parameter names/formats' is about the device, not about the tool's own inputs, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (read-only) and concrete resources: the currently active motor data set, online rated/max speed, frequency, and speed reference. That distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings such as read_drive_runtime_status and read_drive_position_status, though the boundary with runtime status is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'only reads the currently active motor group' plus the warning that switching motor group or changing parameters invalidates old motion plans. However, it never states explicitly when to call this instead of read_drive_runtime_status or get_parameter_set, so the agent must infer the choice.

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