call_ros2_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions return values but does not disclose potential side effects, error handling details, or blocking behavior. The phrase 'powerful generic tool' hints at danger but lacks explicit warnings.

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 clear and uses bullet-point examples and return structure. It is fairly concise, though the examples could be shortened slightly. It front-loads the purpose and maintains good structure.

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 3 parameters, high schema coverage, and the existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's generic nature and provides examples. However, it could mention that the response structure varies by service type.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples demonstrating usage but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as formatting constraints for the 'request' parameter.

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 it can 'Call any ROS2 service directly,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a generic service caller, while siblings like 'set_route' are specialized for specific services.

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 advises using 'list_ros2_services' to discover available services and provides examples. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., when a specialized sibling tool exists) or alternative approaches.

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