drive_rc

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

With no annotations and no description of behavior, the agent gets no information about whether the motion persists, safety limits, or response format. The description only says 'Drive with RC controls' and provides zero transparency 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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, but this conciseness sacrifices substance. However, as a purely structural assessment, it is appropriately brief.

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 2 required numeric parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description is far too minimal. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what happens after the command is issued, or how it compares to the many drive-related sibling tools. This is inadequate for an agent to safely operate the robot.

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%, and the description does not compensate. The parameter names (linear_velocity, yaw_velocity) are self-explanatory at a basic level, but no units, sign conventions, ranges, or interaction between the two velocities are described. 'RC controls' is a vague hint that does not add real semantic value.

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 'Drive with RC controls' merely restates the tool name without elaboration. It does not explain what RC controls means or differentiate it from sibling tools like drive_tank or drive_with_heading.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as drive_tank, drive_with_heading, drive_forward, or drive_backward. The description gives no context for choosing drive_rc over other drive modes.

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