Turn

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds modest value by clarifying the motion is in-place ('on the spot') and self-terminating ('then stop'), but says nothing about speed defaults, motion range, or the meaning of the destructive hint.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the usage hint following. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 2-parameter motion tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It would be fully complete if it clarified its relationship to turn_to_heading, its nearest sibling.

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 100%, so both degrees (sign convention) and speed_percent (deg/s) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Spin on the spot by an angle, then stop') that clearly conveys an in-place rotation. It references look() for a follow-up use, but does not differentiate itself from close siblings like turn_to_heading or face_object, which also change orientation.

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?

Provides one concrete usage context ('To face something seen in look(), turn by its bearing'), which is a helpful implied cue. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance, so an agent has no basis to choose this over turn_to_heading or face_object.

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