retrieve_articraft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that query ranks records and 'omit to keep catalog order,' that each record is a URDF asset with meshes and joints, and that it returns 'ranked records with their ids and metadata.' This goes beyond the basic 'retrieve' verb and reveals the internal behavior and return shape, though it doesn't mention error handling or rate limits.

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 a first sentence summary, a brief explanation of record composition, and an Args section that enumerates parameters. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is scannable. It is neither too terse nor bloated.

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 simple parameter set, presence of an output schema, and clear sibling relationships, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter semantics, and return content. It fully explains the workflow and leaves no critical gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 compensate, and it does. It explains category as an exact slug from list_categories, query as free-text for ranking with an omission behavior, and top_k as the maximum number of records. All three parameters are clearly defined beyond their schema names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve articulated furniture records from one catalog category.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by referencing list_categories for slugs and generate_scene for placement, showing where this tool fits in the workflow.

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 gives explicit prerequisite guidance: 'Use list_categories first to find valid category slugs.' It also explains that the records are intended for generate_scene to place, providing clear context on when to use it. It doesn't name alternative retrieval tools or state 'when not to use,' but the guidance is sufficient for selecting this tool.

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