关节旋转

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, but no readOnly or destructive hints. The description adds useful behavioral context: it affects only joint angles, not Cartesian axes, and returns confirmation of joint ID and target angle. It doesn't discuss error handling or invalid input behavior, but the annotation covers idempotency, and the stated range (0~2) adds safety context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and parameters, and includes a clear usage distinction. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or fluff content.

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?

The tool is simple with only 2 required parameters, and the description covers the purpose, parameter meaning, scope of effect, and alternative tools. An output schema exists, so the return confirmation mention is sufficient. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema provides only names and types with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that joint_id ranges from 0 to 2 and that the angle is specified in degrees. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, although angle constraints beyond 'degrees' are not detailed.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: '控制单个关节旋转到指定角度 (°)' (control a single joint rotation to a specified angle in degrees). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it only affects joint angles, not the Cartesian end-effector axes, and recommends move_to or move_relative for spatial movement.

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 (rotating a single joint to an angle) and when not to use it (moving the end-effector to a spatial position). It names the alternative tools move_to and move_relative, providing clear guidance beyond just a general description.

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