move_relative

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds important behavioral context: the move is clamped to software limits. This discloses a critical safety behavior. However, it omits other behaviors like error handling, speed defaults, or return values.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation, the second provides usage guidance and a key behavioral detail. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and 0% parameter descriptions, the description covers the core operation and clamping behavior but lacks explanation for the 'speed' parameter, return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'motor' and 'degrees' by context ('nudge one motor', 'relative amount in degrees'), but 'speed' is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not sufficiently explain all three parameters.

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 ('nudge', 'move') and resource ('one motor') with a specific amount type ('relative in degrees'). It explicitly differentiates from siblings like 'move_to' by emphasizing 'relative' and lists concrete use cases for incremental adjustments.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios ('turn a bit more', 'back off 10 degrees', incremental jogging). Although it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools (e.g., 'move_to' for absolute positioning) makes the distinction clear.

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