request_mrm

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not warn about potential destructive effects (e.g., vehicle stopping, trajectory changes), required permissions, or side effects. The return value description is minimal and lacks details on success/failure conditions.

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 extremely concise with no unnecessary words. It uses a clear Args/Returns structure and front-loads the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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 action-oriented nature of the tool (initiating a maneuver) and the presence of an output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context, such as prerequisites (e.g., vehicle must be in a specific mode), potential impacts, and what the 'current state' entails. The current description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool safely.

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% and the description merely repeats parameter names and types without adding meaning. It does not explain valid 'behavior' values or provide examples of 'reason'. The description adds no value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 the verb 'Request' and the resource 'Minimum Risk Maneuver (MRM)', making the tool's primary function unambiguous. While it distinguishes from sibling tools that monitor or list MRM states, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar command tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as monitor_mrm_state or list_mrm_behaviors. There is no mention of prerequisites, preconditions, or scenarios where this tool should or should not be invoked.

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