robot_control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the unified interface concept, automatic routing based on robot type, and action-specific limitations (e.g., 'physical bot only' for certain actions). However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or safety implications of emergency stops.

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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, args, returns, examples) and front-loaded key information. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the portmanteau explanation). The examples are helpful but add length.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 8 action types, dual robot support) and having an output schema (returns dictionary), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, parameters, usage examples, and behavioral context. The main gap is lack of error/edge case handling information, which would be valuable for a control tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It explains robot_id format with examples, enumerates and describes all action options with physical/virtual limitations, clarifies linear/angular velocity units and purposes, explains duration parameter, and mentions **kwargs for additional parameters. This fully compensates for the schema coverage gap.

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 the tool provides 'unified robot control' for both physical and virtual robots, specifying it routes commands to appropriate handlers based on robot type. It distinguishes itself from siblings like robot_virtual or vbot_crud by handling both types through a single interface.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (for controlling both physical and virtual robots) and implicitly suggests alternatives by mentioning robot type routing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific sibling tools as alternatives for specialized cases.

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