Add sensor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that unspecified fields default to type defaults (centre of body, facing forward), but it omits failure modes, duplicate-name behavior, enabled-state defaults, and what the call returns.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the most important omitted-field behavior. No wasted text.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers defaults but leaves out prerequisites, side effects, and error behavior. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 71%, so the schema documents most parameters, but the description adds meaningful semantics for omitted fields by explaining their positional and angle defaults. It still doesn't clarify what each sensor type does or type-specific range defaults.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource, 'Install a new sensor on the rover body,' and the word 'new' distinguishes it from update_sensor and remove_sensor. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of the top score.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_sensor, remove_sensor, or list_sensors, and no prerequisites such as requiring an open simulator. Only the defaulting behavior is mentioned.

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