reachy_go_to_zero

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'move the robot to zero/neutral position' but does not explain whether the motion is blocking, whether it requires a wake state, what happens if motors are disabled, or whether it cancels ongoing continuous moves. This is a significant gap for an action that moves a physical robot.

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 redundant or speculative information. It communicates the core action and target state immediately.

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 zero-argument tool, this is minimally viable, but it lacks context around prerequisites and consequences. Given the rich sibling set (wake_up, go_to_sleep, continuous move tools), an agent would benefit from knowing whether the robot should be awake and whether this resets any ongoing behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed in this case; the baseline of 4 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 states a clear verb ('move') and a clear target ('zero/neutral position'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reachy_move_head or reachy_move_antennas. It is not a tautology, though it could be slightly more explicit about whether it affects all joints or a specific posture.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reachy_wake_up or reachy_go_to_sleep. The description does not mention whether the robot must be awake, whether this is a reset action, or when an agent should prefer this over continuous movement tools.

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