vector_drive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not reveal side effects, prerequisites, or limitations (e.g., whether the robot must be off the charger, if it stops on obstacles, or if it blocks until completion). This is a significant gap for a physical motion command.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with every word earning its place. It communicates the essential action without fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. This is an example of efficient conciseness.

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 simple, three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. The agent knows what the tool does and the parameters are documented, but it lacks context about safe usage (e.g., obstacles, charger states) and when it is appropriate versus siblings. Given the existence of vector_drive_on_charger, some additional context would help, but the tool is simple enough that a 3 seems fair.

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 adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how speed, angle, and distance interact or that they are optional. The schema already provides units and defaults, so the description is not necessary for parameter understanding.

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 action: 'Move the robot straight and/or turn it in place.' It specifies the verb and resource, so an agent understands the core function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like vector_drive_on_charger, which might have overlapping use cases, so it's not a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify when vector_drive_on_charger would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling list alone.

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