Plan a robot path

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

The description transparently discloses failure codes, provenance requirements, and artifact behavior, but these disclosures contradict the readOnlyHint=true annotation: the tool is labeled read-only while also causing the camera flythrough to be left on disk and returning a full-trajectory artifact key. Per the rubric, an annotation contradiction caps this dimension at 1.

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?

Every clause earns its place: purpose, exclusivity constraint, failure modes, provenance obligation, and artifact retrieval. The core action is front-loaded and the rest is dense but not redundant.

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 no output schema and eight parameters, the description covers the main call shape, failures, provenance, and artifact key. It is still incomplete on the meaning of start, clearance, and up_override, so an agent could mis-specify those inputs.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description carries a lot of parameter meaning: it explains object_uid/point_world exclusivity, waypoint sampling, and artifact retrieval. However, start, clearance, and up_override remain semantically unexplained, so the compensation is only partial.

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 action (planning a path), the resource domain (scanned free space), and the two target forms (object uid or world point). This clearly differentiates it from the scene measurement, list, and image sibling tools, and it includes the endpoint for confirmation.

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?

It tells the agent when to use the tool and imposes the key constraint 'Provide exactly one of object_uid | point_world'. It also enumerates failure modes, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use them.

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