Shoot at goal

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write/destructive nature is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the multi-step physical sequence, the post-action retreat, and the fact that it returns a photo taken after the kick. It does not describe failure conditions (e.g., no goal visible, ball not in kicker).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by prerequisites and return value. Efficient, though the second sentence's nested parentheses make it slightly dense rather than maximally scannable.

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 discloses the return value ('a photo taken after the kick'), covers prerequisites, and outlines the behavioral sequence. For a 3-parameter, zero-required tool it is nearly complete; missing only edge-case behavior on failure.

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 67%: goal and strength enums carry their own descriptions while speed_percent is undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no mention of goal colour selection, strength choice, or speed), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Score with the ball the robot is holding') and unpacks the full sequence of actions (find goal, turn, kick, back away). It does not explicitly contrast itself with closely related siblings like score_goal, kick, or test_kick, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 states clear preconditions and routes to alternatives: 'Get the ball into the kicker first (approach_object) and confirm with look().' This is explicit prerequisite guidance naming sibling tools. It lacks any when-not-to-use or failure-mode guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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