jump-over-obstacle

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (jumping over an obstacle in the direction of the target) and a limitation (obstacle height 1). However, it does not disclose failure modes (e.g., what happens if the obstacle is too tall), prerequisites (must be on ground), or whether it moves the bot to the other side. The description is not misleading but is minimal.

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 description is two sentences long, with no superfluous information. The first sentence states purpose, the second gives a usage criterion. Both earn their place and are front-loaded.

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?

The tool has three required parameters and no output schema. The description explains the action and a key limitation (obstacle height 1) but does not describe what happens on failure, whether the action is instantaneous, or how it relates to alternative movement tools. It is minimally complete for deciding when to use, but lacks richer context.

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 schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter described as 'Target X/Y/Z coordinate to determine direction.' The description reinforces this by noting the jump is 'in the direction toward target' but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameters.

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 clearly states the action: 'Jump over a small obstacle ahead of the bot in the direction toward target.' It specifies the resource (obstacle), the verb (jump over), and the direction logic (toward target). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'jump-in-place' (no directional movement) and 'move-horizontally' (no obstacle clearing).

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?

The description provides usage context by noting it is 'Good for obstacles of height 1 (blocking the bot's feet but not head).' This implies when to use it (short obstacles) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for taller obstacles). It gives clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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