Scan surroundings

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior (full rotation, return to starting heading, recognising AprilTags only once enabled), but never explains why a scan is destructive (e.g. collision risk while turning), which is the one surprising trait the annotations flag.

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?

Two sentences, behavior first and usage second, front-loaded with no filler. The parenthetical object list is long but functional; overall efficient.

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 spells out what the scan yields (object headings and goal centres) and the workflow to follow. It is only incomplete on the undocumented speed parameter.

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 has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions speed or its range/default. Nothing compensates for the gap, leaving the parameter's meaning to be inferred from its name and bounds alone.

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 verb and resource: 'Turn a full circle on the spot,' then names exactly what it captures (headings of recognised objects and centred goals). This distinguishes it from siblings like look and detect_objects by describing the 360-degree sweep and heading output.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do with the result: 'Use the headings with turn_to_heading, approach_object or shoot_at_goal.' Clear downstream context, but no guidance on when to prefer this over look/detect_objects or any exclusions.

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