compare_robots_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the function and parameters, but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, error handling, or any constraints beyond the bare parameters.

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 to the point, with a clear separation of purpose, parameters, and return. It avoids redundancy, though the parameter list could be formatted more clearly (e.g., using bullet points or Markdown).

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and only two required parameters with no constraints, the description lacks details on the return format and how the comparison is performed. It leaves ambiguity about the expected input and output, making it insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 description adds basic semantic labels to parameters (e.g., 'robot_ids: 机器人ID列表' implies a list of robot identifiers), which is helpful given the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). However, it does not clarify the exact format or allowed values for metric_columns or time stamps.

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 it compares the performance of multiple robots, which is a specific verb-resource combination. Among sibling tools like analyze_robot_data or generate_robot_report, this tool is distinct in focusing on multi-robot comparison.

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 given on when to use this tool over alternatives such as analyze_robot_data or generate_robot_report. There is no indication of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.

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