Test a kick

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

With annotations only declaring destructive/openWorld/readOnly hints, the description adds substantial undisclosed behavior: the distance is persisted when the ball stops in view, an out-of-range roll requires human measurement, and results accumulate in robot_status().panel.abilities. It does not explain the destructiveHint=true side effect (the robot physically displaces the ball), leaving one notable gap.

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?

The purpose and the open-floor precondition are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact (persistence, human fallback, where results land). Slightly conversational phrasing ('watch it roll') costs a little density but nothing is filler.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of saying where results are stored (robot_status().panel.abilities) and what to do on failure. The main omission is any hint about the strength enum's semantics or the physical side effect implied by destructiveHint=true.

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 50%: the `ball_in_kicker` parameter is documented in the schema, but `strength` has only an enum with no explanation. The description says 'how far this strength sends it', linking the parameter to an effect, but never clarifies what soft/medium/hard mean or how they map to distance. Baseline 3 fits since the schema carries roughly half the load.

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 names a specific action ('kick the ball in the kicker straight ahead and watch it roll') and its goal ('to measure how far this strength sends it'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling `kick` (plain action) and `record_kick_distance` (manual fallback). An agent can identify it as a calibration experiment without opening the schema.

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 a precondition ('Point the robot at open floor first') and an explicit alternative path when the normal flow fails ('If it rolls out of the camera's range... call record_kick_distance'). It does not, however, state when to prefer test_kick over the plain `kick` sibling, so the routing guidance is slightly incomplete.

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