predict_trajectory

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does add useful behavioral context: it is a simulation, runs at 1000Hz, and computes in under 0.1ms. However, it does not disclose what the output looks like or whether any state changes occur, leaving some uncertainty for an agent.

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?

The description is a single sentence and front-loaded with the core purpose. It loses one point for the unnecessary '[WORLD-FIRST]' marketing phrase, which is extraneous for an AI agent.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the simulation returns. It does not, and it also omits any prerequisites or side effects. For a tool that is meant to pre-validate trajectory commands, this is a notable gap.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions (linear_x, angular_z, dt_sec). The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning 'over time dt_sec' and implying the velocities are inputs, but it does not enrich the semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Pre-simulate') and clearly identifies the resource (robot trajectory) with coordinates and time. It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the simulation happens before sending commands to hardware, which is a unique purpose among the listed tools.

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 states the tool is used 'BEFORE sending commands to hardware', which gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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