board_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the returned fields and clarifies that position 0 means off, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or requires any specific connection state. The 'status' framing implies a read, but explicit behavioral guarantees are absent.

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?

A single dense sentence that lists the relevant status categories without filler. It is appropriately sized, though it opens with a noun list rather than a clear 'Returns...' verb, which slightly reduces front-loading.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a comprehensive inventory of returned data, including the important '0 = off' meaning. It lacks an explicit read-only/no-side-effects statement, but otherwise contains what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not introduce confusing parameter-like details.

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?

Lists exactly what board status data is returned: rail current/voltage, faults, protection limits, and per-channel name, mode, travel limits, speed, and current position. The verb is implicit rather than stated, but the resource and scope are specific enough to distinguish it from focused tools like read_analog or measure_current.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to call this versus siblings such as measure_current, read_analog, list_poses, or script_status. The agent must infer that this is a broad board overview rather than a targeted measurement or pose listing.

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