move_motors_relative

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, signaling a mutating operation without destruction. The description adds 'concurrently' and 'bounded degrees,' which clarifies execution semantics but does not explain what 'bounded' means (e.g., blocking until completion, timeout behavior) or what happens on error. It does not contradict annotations.

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, short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, so while it is concise, it borders on under-specification rather than elegant economy.

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 no output schema, no parameter documentation in the schema, and a description that only states generic movement, this is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and 3 required. An agent cannot determine how powers, degrees, and ports correspond, how 'bounded' is enforced, or what the command returns or when it completes.

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 for documenting parameters, but it does not explain any of them. It does not mention ports, powers, degrees, brake, or timeout_seconds, nor their relationships (e.g., parallel arrays). The term 'bounded degrees' hints at degrees but fails to clarify that degree values are relative or bounded.

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 ('move'), a specific resource ('motors'), and a key qualifier ('relative', 'concurrently', 'bounded degrees'). It clearly communicates the core action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like move_motor_relative (singular) or move_motors_absolute beyond the word 'relative,' which is already in the name.

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 usage for moving multiple motors concurrently, which distinguishes it from single-motor moves, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other motor control tools like run_motors, drive_sync, or move_motors_absolute. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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