solve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool mutates the scene ('leaves the scene there') and reports per-goal success frequency, but it omits reversibility, failure behavior, and dependency details.

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 dense sentences with no wasted words and leads with the core action. The phrasing is somewhat awkward but structurally front-loaded and efficient.

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 complex six-parameter solver with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It summarizes the side effect and return report, but does not explain key parameters or edge cases, leaving the agent to rely heavily on the schema.

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 only 67%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions goals and samples in passing but provides no additional meaning for dofs, pivot, maximize, or keep_hands beyond what the schema already says.

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 states a specific operation: searching rifle moves from the current pose to satisfy every goal and leaving the scene at the result. It is clear enough to distinguish this from simple move or list tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'from the current pose' implies a context, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives such as reach, move_gun, or pose_clip. An agent must infer the tool's place in the workflow.

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