Reset position

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, and the description adds the concrete state change (heading to 0°, position to (0, 0)). However, it does not resolve the critical ambiguity for a robot: whether the physical robot moves to the origin or only the internal coordinate frame is re-zeroed.

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 with no filler, front-loading the two effects. Nothing is wasted and nothing relevant to a zero-argument tool is omitted.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is whether this is a physical motion or a logical frame reset, which matters for sequencing against move/turn in a robot control flow.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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?

States a specific effect with exact values: heading becomes 0° and position becomes (0, 0). This distinguishes it from turn_to_heading (sets an arbitrary heading) and go_to (moves to an arbitrary position), though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but the semantics strongly imply the use case: re-zeroing odometry so heading and coordinates start from a known origin. The agent must infer this rather than being told.

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