drive_with_heading

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Drive at speed toward heading,' but nothing about how the heading is interpreted, whether reverse changes direction, safety implications, or what happens when the target is reached. This is insufficient for a robot control command.

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 concise (one sentence), but it lacks structure and omits critical details. It is not a well-organized explanation that front-loads the most important information; it merely echoes the tool name and schema property names.

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 purpose (robot driving) and the existence of many sibling driving tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain coordinate frames, parameter units, or behavior when obstacles are encountered. The output schema exists, but that does not compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 has three parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It references 'speed' and 'heading' but adds no meaning beyond the property names—units, ranges, and the 'reverse' parameter are left unexplained. The description barely goes beyond the schema itself.

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 a verb ('Drive') and a resource ('heading'), indicating a driving command that uses speed and heading. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like drive_tank, drive_forward, or pivot, since the semantics of 'heading' (absolute vs relative, units) are not explained.

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 or drive_forward. The description implies the use case (drive toward a heading) but does not explicitly state context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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