move_backward

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 the core behavior (driving backward for a duration at a speed), but does not mention whether the call blocks, if it stops after the duration, or any safety considerations. The clamping behavior is already in the schema, so the description adds minimal extra transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and key parameters.

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 2-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential action. However, it omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., robot connected) or relationship to sibling tools, leaving some context implicit. Still, the overall context is sufficient for basic use.

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?

Both parameters have full descriptions in the schema (speed_pct with range/clamping, duration_s with clamping), achieving 100% coverage. The description only restates these concepts without adding new meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Drive'), a clear resource ('EV3 tank motors'), and explicit direction ('backward'), with additional detail on timing and speed. This unambiguously distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'move_forward'.

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 clearly implies use when backward movement is required, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly reference alternative tools (e.g., 'move_forward') or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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