turn_left

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the motor actions and timed nature, but it does not mention whether the robot stops after the duration, the command's blocking behavior, or what the output/return value indicates. This leaves some key behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, concise sentence that leads with the core function ('Differential turn left'), immediately followed by the mechanical detail and duration. No wasteful phrases; every word earns its place.

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 simplicity and the rich input schema, the description covers the primary behavior (motor reversal, timed turn) and is well-supported by sibling names. It does not explain return values or post-duration behavior, but the output schema (present) likely covers that, making the description sufficient for a basic motion tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for speed_pct and duration_s, including defaults and clamping. The description adds the 'timed duration' context, but this mainly reinforces the schema rather than adding novel meaning. Baseline 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 explicitly states a specific action ('Differential turn left') and clarifies the mechanical execution ('left motor reverse, right forward'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like move_forward and turn_right. The mention of 'timed duration' also aligns with the duration_s parameter.

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 implies this tool is for performing a left turn in place, but it does not explicitly provide alternative tool names (e.g., 'use turn_right for right turns') or state when not to use it. The sibling tool list offers context, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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