相对移动

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the idempotentHint=false annotation: it returns target coordinate and speed confirmation, defines coordinate sign conventions, and specifies speed range and default. It does not mention blocking behavior or error handling, but the physical movement context is clear and no contradiction with annotations exists.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose statement, coordinate legend, usage note, speed default, and alternatives are all presented in a compact, scannable format. Every sentence adds value and the information is front-loaded with the core action.

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 the tool's complexity, the sparse schema, and limited annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the operation, units, coordinate semantics, default behavior, return information, and alternatives. The presence of an output schema means the return-value mention is a bonus, not a requirement, and the description still provides it.

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 has no descriptions and 0% coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It defines the meaning of dx, dy, dz with directional signage, provides speed range [10, 200] and default 100, and gives a practical example. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter explanations.

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's function: offset the robot arm end effector relative to its current position in mm. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with move_to (fixed coordinates) and get_status (read-only), and by labeling it the most commonly used movement tool.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for relative moves from the current position. It names alternatives with clear conditions: use move_to for fixed coordinates, use get_status for position queries. The example '用户说「向右 100mm」→ dx=100' makes the intended usage concrete.

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