start_ir_following

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for explaining side effects and behavior. It only states the action without detailing what following entails, how IR codes are used, or whether the robot will move, which is a significant gap for a 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 a single, entirely front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the action without unnecessary detail, earning a perfect conciseness score.

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 is simple, with full parameter schema and an output schema, but the description omits usage context and behavioral details. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent without guidance on when to use it versus other IR-related tools.

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 coverage is 100%, with both far_code and near_code clearly described as 'IR code to follow when far (0-7)' and 'IR code to follow when near (0-7)'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Start following') and resource ('IR-broadcasting robot'), making the core purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like start_ir_broadcasting and stop_ir_following, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like start_ir_evading or stop_ir_following, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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