Turn by degrees

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the approximate turn rate (≈115°/s), the absence of a 0.2 s minimum, and that the observation is returned. It does not describe blocking/obstacle behavior, but the key movement semantics are disclosed and do not contradict the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and sign convention, followed by the key behavioral distinction from drive. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter turn tool, the description gives enough to call it correctly: units/sign, speed, exactness, and return behavior. Missing details about the returned observation payload or obstacle handling are minor given the schema and sibling context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does so by defining the sign convention (+ right/clockwise, − left) and exact-angle intent for degrees, though it does not restate the schema's ±360 range.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Turn the rover in place'), states the exact-angle behavior, and gives the sign convention. It also distinguishes this from drive left/right, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 explicitly names drive left/right as the alternative and explains the key condition for choosing turn: no 0.2 s minimum, so small corrections are exact. It does not fully spell out when to prefer drive for larger motions, but the relevant comparison is present.

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