drive_tank

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Drive with tank controls,' giving no information about how the velocities behave (continuous vs. one-shot), units, ranges, or safety implications. This is minimal but slightly better than a pure tautology.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 large number of drive-related tools and the absence of annotations or parameter descriptions, this extremely brief description is insufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool. It lacks context on return values, parameter ranges, and how it compares to similar drive commands.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly explain the parameters, but the phrase 'tank controls' hints that left_velocity and right_velocity are independent drive speeds. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but no additional meaning is added.

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 tank controls' clearly states a verb (drive) and a specific mechanism (tank controls), which implies independent left/right velocity control. This differentiates it from sibling tools like drive_with_heading or drive_rc, though it does not explicitly name them or spell out the distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many driving-related siblings (e.g., drive_rc, pivot, drive_forward). It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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