vector_head

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses clamping to the safe range (-22.0 to 45.0 degrees), which is the most important behavioral trait. It could mention whether the call blocks until movement completes, but the disclosed behavior covers the core safety-critical aspect.

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 uses two short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The operation is front-loaded, and the clamping behavior is stated immediately afterward.

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 single-parameter actuator with full schema coverage and no nested objects or output schema, the description gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly. It could add failure or async behavior details, but they are not essential for basic correct usage.

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 input schema already fully documents angle_deg including units, range, and clamping. The description restates this information but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Set Vector's head angle in degrees.' It also includes the exact safe range, making it immediately clear what the tool does and distinguishing it from siblings like vector_lift or vector_drive.

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?

The intended use case is clear: an agent should use this tool when it needs to change Vector's head angle. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focused scope makes the usage context unmistakable.

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