velocity_tracking

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the modeling behavior and the signal pair it operates on, which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about cost, read-only nature, or the shape of the result (the output schema exists, so return format is partly covered). Adequate but incomplete.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and result. Every clause adds information, though the parenthetical explanation adds length without changing the call semantics.

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 one-parameter analysis tool with a fully documented schema and an existing output schema, the description explains what the analysis produces and why it matters. The main omission is routing guidance relative to sibling analyses, which is a usage concern more than a completeness gap.

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?

There is a single parameter 'log' with 100% schema description coverage, and the description adds no semantics about it (accepted path/name forms, default behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the 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 states a specific verb (fits) and a precise analytical result (first-order lag plus dead time from trajectory_setpoint to measured velocity), which clearly distinguishes it from diagnostic siblings like estimator_health or estimate_vs_truth. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'the reaction time an avoidance planner has to budget for' hints at the use case (planner tuning), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many analysis siblings. The agent must infer when this fits.

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