reachy_move_head

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It duplicates the pitch/roll/yaw limits already present in the schema, but does not disclose whether the angles are absolute or relative, what happens if the robot is asleep, whether the motion blocks until completion, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a physical manipulation tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. However, the second sentence restates range constraints already present in the schema, making it slightly redundant rather than purely additive.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and all parameters marked optional, the description leaves key questions unanswered: what happens when no orientation parameters are supplied, whether orientation is absolute or relative to the current pose, and how duration affects execution. An agent cannot infer correct invocation from the available information alone.

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 per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's range statement for pitch/roll/yaw adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already specifies; it does not clarify the role of duration or how parameters interact.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Move the robot's head to a specific orientation.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like reachy_move_antennas, which concerns a different body part. The range limits also add specificity to what the tool does.

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 its use case ('move the robot's head') but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites like waking the robot first. With multiple sibling tools for movement (antennas, continuous move, go_to), this could be clearer.

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