go_to_position

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the schema: the move is queued (non-blocking), acceleration/deceleration are applied, and the function returns immediately. It also tells the agent to poll get_n_queued_items for completion. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It could add a bit more about error conditions or what 'success confirmation' means, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then the queuing behavior, then the prerequisite, then parameter details. Every sentence earns its place. The only minor issue is that the parameter details are embedded in the description rather than in the schema, but they are still concise and well-organized.

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 motion-control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how it behaves (queued), when to use it, prerequisites, and parameter meanings. It could be more complete by describing the return value format or error handling, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly and know what to expect.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains position is in degrees, duration is in seconds, and motor can be an alias, a 16-hex-digit ID, or 'all' (with the caveat that broadcasts get no responses). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't detail the exact format of the success confirmation, but the essential parameter semantics are covered.

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 clearly states the action ('Move to this new given position'), the resource (position), and the key parameter (time). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that this command QUEUES the move and returns immediately, unlike move_to/move_relative which wait. The firmware command group is also provided for context.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when you want to queue a move and return immediately, and it names the alternatives (move_to/move_relative) that wait. It also provides a critical prerequisite: 'Requires enable_mosfets first.' This is excellent guidance for an agent deciding between similar motion-control tools.

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