Explain drive parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that entries carry confidence levels and should be verified for medium/low confidence before changing a drive, but it does not explicitly confirm the tool is read-only, describe side effects, or explain the return structure.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the tool's purpose and examples, then add the important confidence/verification caveat. There is no wasted text.

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 one-parameter explanation tool with no output schema, the description gives a good conceptual picture of what is returned: an explanation, axis-drive values, and confidence information. It stops short of fully describing output shape or whether values are live versus documented, but it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter is already documented as 'Parameter name'. The description adds real domain meaning beyond the schema by specifying SERVOSTAR 600 ASCII parameters and giving examples such as GP, GVTN, FBTYPE, IN3MODE, and PGEARI.

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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('SERVOSTAR 600 ASCII parameter'), gives concrete parameter examples, and clarifies that it also shows the parameter's value across every axis drive. This is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools like get_drive_parameters and compare_drive_parameters.

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 when the tool is useful by saying it explains a parameter and shows values across axis drives, and it warns to verify medium/low-confidence entries before changing a drive. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this versus get_drive_parameters.

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