Retrieve an object's orientation as Euler angles in radians, relative to the world or another frame, to monitor or control simulation poses.
Devuelve la orientación de un objeto como ángulos de Euler en radianes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nombre | Yes | ||
| relativo_a | No | mundo |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return format (Euler angles in radians) but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether it can fail, or how the 'relativo_a' parameter affects the result. The absence of any mention of side effects or error conditions leaves significant gaps.
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, concise sentence that delivers the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and output, making it quickly scannable. However, given its brevity, it omits critical details, slightly reducing the score for structural completeness.
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 has a simple function, but the description is incomplete given the presence of two parameters and an output schema. It does not explain parameter semantics or usage context, and while the output schema covers return values, the description offers no behavioral or usage guidance. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
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%, and the description fails to explain either parameter. It does not clarify that 'nombre' is the object name or that 'relativo_a' denotes the reference frame (with default 'mundo'). The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions, leaving semantic meaning entirely undocumented.
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 verb 'Devuelve' (returns) and the resource 'orientación de un objeto' (object orientation), specifying the output format as Euler angles in radians. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'fijar_orientacion' (set orientation) and 'obtener_posicion' (get position), making the purpose unmistakable.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer 'obtener_orientacion' over other getters or the setter 'fijar_orientacion'. The usage is implied but not explicitly stated, and there is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.