drive_forward

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of RVR's internal position controller, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not mention potential side effects, behavior with invalid parameters (e.g., negative distance), or environmental interactions. It provides minimal extra context beyond the action itself.

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 concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every word adds value, no fluff or 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 simple movement tool, the description covers the purpose and a key aspect (position controller). Given that an output schema exists and sibling tools are clear, it is sufficiently complete. It lacks only minor edge-case context like negative distance handling, but that is not critical for understanding the tool's main function.

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 input schema already covers both parameters (distance and speed) with descriptions and defaults, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Drive forward a specified distance in meters') with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the internal position controller, distinguishing it from direction-based siblings like drive_backward and pivot.

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 implies use for precise, distance-controlled forward movement ('accurate movement'), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or any exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'use this instead of drive_tank for straight lines'.

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