reachy_start_continuous_move

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 does disclose that the movement is continuous and sinusoidal, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not state whether the movement continues until stopped, what happens if the robot is asleep, or any safety implications.

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 the key verb and object front-loaded. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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-parameter tool, the description names the action and the movement type, but it leaves important context implicit: which joint group or motors are affected, whether stop_continuous_move is the intended counterpart, and whether any precondition like wake_up is needed. An agent could call it reasonably, but not with full confidence about scope and effects.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage by default. There are no parameters whose semantics need explanation, so 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 identifies a specific action ('start') and a specific resource ('continuous sinusoidal movement on the robot'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like stop_continuous_move and move_head, though it does not specify which body parts are involved.

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 on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as move_head or move_antennas. The existence of stop_continuous_move implies a pairing, but the description does not clarify scope or conditions.

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