move_to

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the move is absolute, closed-loop (won't lose steps), and clamps to software limits with clamp reports in safety_notes. However, it does not mention blocking behavior or return value, leaving a gap.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage context, then parameter behavior. No redundant information; every sentence adds value. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, the description explains the tool's action and key behaviors (clamping, closed-loop) adequately but lacks details on return value and execution mode (blocking or async). For a simple motor move, it is mostly complete but not fully comprehensive.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'degrees' (target angle), 'speed' (optional degrees/second), and implies 'motor' identifies the motor. It does not explain motor constraints or valid ranges, but provides baseline 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 clearly states the tool moves one motor to an absolute angle in degrees, specifying 'closed-loop' to differentiate from open-loop moves. It contrasts with the sibling 'move_relative' by emphasizing absolute positioning, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 tells when to use this tool: when the user names a target position like 'go to 90 degrees'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to 'move_relative', but the use case is clear. It also mentions clamping behavior, which guides the agent.

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