vector_lift

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the clamping behavior ('Input is clamped to the valid range 0.0–1.0'), which is useful. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as whether the operation is asynchronous, whether it blocks, or any safety implications of moving the physical lift. The provided info is accurate but limited.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action, then specifies the range and clamping behavior. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, given it physically moves a robot component, it might benefit from mentioning that the movement is not instantaneous or that it may fail if the robot is not in a stable state. The description covers the core behavior but lacks such contextual details, leaving some potential gaps for an agent.

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 schema already describes the parameter well (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly defining the endpoint meanings (0.0 = lowest, 1.0 = highest), which the schema only calls 'normalised value'. This clarifies the semantic range beyond the schema, justifying a 4.

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's action ('Set Vector's lift/arm height') and provides the specific range with semantic meaning (0.0 lowest, 1.0 highest). It is not a tautology and effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings that control other robot functions (e.g., vector_head, vector_drive).

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 usage is implied: the tool is for setting the lift height, which is self-evident. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., robot must be connected), or conditions under which this should not be used. The context is minimal but not misleading.

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