pivot

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds 'Uses internal heading control for accurate turning,' which is helpful, but it does not mention blocking behavior, completion conditions, or edge cases like overshoot or repeated turns. It lacks depth for a movement 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 two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and then add the key differentiator (no forward motion) and a technical detail (heading control). Every word earns its place.

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 relatively simple movement tool, the description provides enough context for selection and invocation. It covers the action, the effect, and a technical behavior. While it doesn't address prerequisites like connection state or potential errors, the output schema and overall context likely cover those, and the description is adequate.

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 100%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for 'degrees' (positive/negative meaning) and 'speed' (range and default). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond repeating that degrees are specified. Baseline 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 tool's purpose: 'Pivot (turn in place) by a specified number of degrees' and explicitly notes 'Rotates the RVR without forward motion.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'without forward motion' clause distinguishes it from drive-related sibling tools.

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 usage context: use when you need a pure in-place rotation, as opposed to moving turns. It clarifies the behavior ('without forward motion') but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions.

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