move_with_velocity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the non-blocking queued behavior, the need to poll get_n_queued_items, the prerequisite enable_mosfets, and the broadcast behavior (no response). It does not explicitly frame the operation as a hardware mutation, but the transparency is otherwise strong.

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?

Three concise sentences: definition, critical queueing behavior with alternatives, and required parameters. Each sentence earns its place and front-loads the core action before routing guidance.

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 state-mutating hardware command with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, async behavior, polling strategy, sibling alternatives, parameter meanings, and return value. Lacks error/edge-case detailty and has a confusing unit clarification, but it is broadly 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 explain the parameters itself. It does: motor alias formats, duration in seconds, velocity unit. However, the velocity unit is internally contradictory — labeled 'degrees_per_second' but then described as 'microsteps per time step * 2^20'. This undermines reliability despite the added semantic value.

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 and object (

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?

Explicitly states that the move is queued and returns immediately, contrasts with move_to/move_relative which wait, and names the prerequisite enable_mosfets. This gives an agent clear routing and timing guidance without needing sibling tool descriptions.

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