go_to

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses that each axis is moved and visually confirmed (same as `aim`), that labels resolve to interpolated angles, and that a physically moved camera can cause drift. The key caveat that the picture check proves axis motion, not label correctness, is genuinely useful. It omits error/failure handling for unknown labels.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the caveat paragraph is short and information-dense. Both paragraphs earn their place, though the second reads slightly densely.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavior on its own; it covers purpose, mechanism, and the main correctness caveat. The remaining gap is what happens on an unresolved label or on visual-check failure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'A label is resolved to the angles recorded for it' explains that `label` is a previously learned identifier rather than an arbitrary string. It does not specify naming format or case sensitivity, keeping it below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Point the camera at a direction recorded earlier with aim_learn') and explicitly ties the mechanism to sibling `aim` while sourcing the target from `aim_learn`. An agent can distinguish this from `aim` (explicit direction) and `aim_learn` (recording) without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'recorded earlier with `aim_learn`' makes the precondition and the alternative tool clear: this tool consumes labels that aim_learn produced. It stops short of stating failure behavior when a label does not exist, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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