Detect objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the return content ('with bearings') and the cost/latency characteristic ('without fetching a photo'), which is real context an agent can act on.

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 tight sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and carries the two most decision-relevant facts (bearings, no photo). No waste, nothing redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-shape info, and it does convey that results are a list with bearings. Combined with the annotations and fully documented parameters, an agent has nearly everything needed; only finer details of the returned fields/format are unstated.

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%, with both 'source' (enum) and 'apriltags' fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List what the robot can see') plus a distinguishing trait ('with bearings, without fetching a photo'). This implicitly separates it from photo-returning siblings like 'look' or 'scan_surroundings', though it does not name those alternatives directly.

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 phrase 'without fetching a photo' implies the tool is for lightweight/cost-free perception rather than image capture, hinting at when to prefer it over 'look'. However, no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative is given, so the routing is left to inference.

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