vector_proximity_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Return' clearly implies a read-only query, but the description does not disclose output units/range, whether the reading is live or cached, or how an unavailable sensor reading would be represented.

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 no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter sensor-read tool.

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?

Invocation is trivial because the tool takes no parameters. However, there is no output schema and the description does not characterize the returned 'reading' — for example, units, value type, or possible states — leaving a gap for interpreting the result.

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?

The input schema has zero properties and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline 4 applies for a 0-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('proximity sensor reading from Vector's front IR sensor'), naming the exact sensor. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like vector_touch_status, vector_charger_status, and the generic vector_status.

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 use case is implied: an agent should call this when it needs the front IR proximity reading. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over vector_status or other sensor-related siblings, and no exclusions are stated.

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