move_motor_relative

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read write operation and non-idempotence, and the description adds a 'then stop' behavior, which is useful. It does not disclose blocking behavior, brake semantics, timeout handling, or failure effects, so behavioral transparency is only partially addressed.

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 efficient sentence that leads with the action verb and avoids filler. The unexplained 'bounded' term costs a point, but the structure is otherwise appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema, and no parameter explanations, an agent would still need to infer how power, brake, timeout_seconds, and 'bounded' affect execution. The description covers only the core action and omits operational details necessary for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only clarifies 'degrees' as relative encoder degrees and loosely implies 'port' via 'one motor'; power, brake, and timeout_seconds receive no semantic explanation.

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 states a clear verb ('Rotate'), resource ('one motor'), and mode ('relative encoder degrees'), which distinguishes it from move_motor_absolute and the multi-motor sibling tools. However, 'bounded' is ambiguous and unexplained, so the purpose is not quite perfectly specified.

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 a usage context: single-motor relative movement. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of move_motor_absolute, move_motors_relative, or run_motor, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives, so guidance is only implicit.

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