vector_scan

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the robot remains in place and performs a scanning action, which is useful, but it does not specify duration, return value, or whether the scan uses the camera or other sensors.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the action and its purpose with no filler. Every word 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema robot command, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. A brief note about return values or completion behavior would make it fully complete, but the simple interface limits the gap.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies that no arguments are needed and adds no conflicting parameter expectations.

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 ('look around') and resource ('environment'), with 'in place' adding a spatial constraint. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like vector_drive, though it does not explicitly name the difference from vector_look.

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 phrase 'to scan the environment' implies a use case, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over vector_look or other vision-related siblings. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.

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