send_action_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses: the tool causes robot movement, is blocked by READONLY mode, requires specific rosbridge_suite support, handles errors with older bridges, details return structures for both blocking and non-blocking modes, and explains timeout clamping.

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 well-structured: a brief purpose statement, a caution, parameter details with formatting, return value descriptions, and prerequisites. Every sentence adds necessary information without 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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, return values, error scenarios, prerequisites, and practical usage notes. It is comprehensive and leaves no major gaps.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: action_name with example, action_type with full type format, goal as JSON object, timeout with default and clamping, and wait_for_result with behavior implications.

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 tool's purpose is clearly stated: 'Send a goal to a ROS 2 action server via rosbridge.' The caution about robot movement and the contrast with siblings like cancel_action_goal, call_service, and publish_message provide strong differentiation.

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?

Some usage guidance is present: caution about robot movement, rejected when READONLY, and guidance on using cancel_action_goal when wait_for_result is false. However, there is no explicit comparison to sibling tools or advice on when to prefer this over other operations.

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