move_with_acceleration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the command queues and returns immediately, that acceleration goes to zero after timeSteps and velocity is maintained, that broadcasts get no responses back, and that enable_mosfets is required. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't detail error conditions or what 'success confirmation' contains.

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 dense but organized: a one-sentence purpose, a queuing/alternative note, a prerequisite, and a parameter list. It front-loads the core behavior and then details parameters. Slightly long due to the parameter explanations, but every sentence earns its place given the 0% schema coverage.

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 3-parameter motion command with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: queuing behavior, completion polling, waiting alternatives, prerequisite, parameter semantics, and broadcast caveat. It doesn't describe error handling or exact return payload, but 'success confirmation' plus the queuing guidance is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 explains acceleration's unit (degrees_per_second_squared with a microstep formula), timeSteps meaning (number of time steps, use command 18 for frequency, behavior after elapsing), and motor formats (alias, 16-hex-digit ID, or 'all' with broadcast caveat). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 states a specific verb ('Rotates the motor') and resource ('with the specified acceleration'), and distinguishes it from siblings move_to/move_relative by noting this version queues and returns immediately. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly name all sibling alternatives for every variant.

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 gives explicit usage context: it queues the move and returns immediately, and tells the agent to poll get_n_queued_items for completion or use move_to/move_relative which wait. It also states a prerequisite: 'Requires enable_mosfets first.' This is strong guidance, though it doesn't enumerate when to prefer this over trapezoid_move or move_with_velocity.

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