send_velocity_command

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool sends a command and returns an acknowledgment, but does not reveal any side effects, state changes, authentication requirements, or safety considerations. This is insufficient for a control tool.

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 concise (three lines) and front-loaded with the main action. However, it is arguably too sparse, missing context that could be added without significant length.

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 has a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers the basics. However, it lacks contextual information about the role of velocity control within the broader system (e.g., vehicle longitudinal control) which would help an agent understand its place among many sibling tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's parameter info ('velocity: Target velocity in m/s') without adding new meaning. It does not include any additional detail about the parameter's usage or constraints.

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 tool's purpose: 'Send velocity control command'. It uses a verb+resource structure and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'send_acceleration_command' and 'send_steering_command' by specifying 'velocity' control. However, it does not explicitly differentiate its usage context or scope.

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 like 'send_acceleration_command' or 'send_pedals_command'. The description lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or context about appropriate scenarios.

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