drive_to

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that the tool blocks until arrival/settling, that arrival detection relies on /state_estimation, that exactly one waypoint is published, and that coordinates are in map frame. It falls short only on timeout-expiration behavior and what happens if the vehicle never arrives.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: the action is front-loaded, the arrival-detection nuance is isolated in sentence two, and the ground() preference is in sentence three. Zero filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

For a motion command with no annotations, the description covers the highest-risk ambiguities: coordinate frame, blocking behavior, arrival source, and where to obtain legitimate coordinates. Remaining gaps are timeout_s semantics and the no-arrival failure mode, but the existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds the map-frame context for x and y, which is valuable, but says nothing about timeout_s beyond what the schema's default value implies. The most ambiguous parameter (timeout_s) is left undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair ('Publish one waypoint') plus the blocking behavior ('wait until the vehicle arrives or settles'). It also distinguishes itself by declaring that arrival is decided from /state_estimation, not a 'waypoint reached' topic, which separates it from sibling navigation 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?

Gives explicit input-sourcing guidance: 'Prefer publish_xy from ground() over coordinates you invent.' This clearly routes the agent to ground() for coordinate generation rather than fabricating values. However, it does not state when not to use drive_to or mention alternatives like stop for halting the vehicle.

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