Explore the arena

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

Despite annotations already flagging destructiveHint=true, the description adds substantial behavior: obstacle and existing-map avoidance, spot-skipping logic, stopping on a bump, a multi-minute runtime, the STOP-button escape hatch, and where results land (robot_status().panel.map). This is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the dense sentences all carry real information. It is somewhat run-on with stacked parentheticals, but little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully redirects to robot_status().panel.map for results, and it covers failure modes and duration. The only real hole is the undocumented speed parameter, leaving it slightly incomplete for a tool that drives the robot.

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 single parameter speed_percent is never mentioned in the description and the schema has 0% description coverage, so the agent learns nothing about its effect, units, or the 5-100 bounds from prose. The name is fairly self-explanatory, which keeps this above a 1, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Map the arena by driving around it') and immediately elaborates the mechanics. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like scan_surroundings or go_to, which do not build a map.

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?

It gives one conditional ('Without a field it only scans where it is'), which implies when the tool is worthwhile, but it never explicitly contrasts with scan_surroundings or other mapping-adjacent siblings, nor states when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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