obtener_posicion

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return format (coordinate array), units (meters), and the meaning of relativo_a. However, it does not describe behavior for nonexistent objects, invalid paths, or other error conditions, and it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only beyond the verb 'devuelve'.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides essential parameter detail about relativo_a. 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 simple two-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, return format, and relative-to semantics. It is adequate, though it could be more complete by specifying error behavior and the exact path syntax for 'nombre'. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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. It explains relativo_a values ('mundo' or an object path like '/Cuboid') and adds units. However, 'nombre' is only implicitly described as an object name via 'de un objeto'; no path syntax or format for 'nombre' is provided beyond the schema field title.

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 purpose: 'Devuelve la posición [x, y, z] de un objeto, en metros.' It uses a specific verb (devuelve), identifies the resource (posición de un objeto), and specifies the output format. This distinguishes it from siblings like fijar_posicion (setter) and obtener_posicion_junta (joint-specific position).

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is a getter for object positions, so the agent can infer when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over obtener_posicion_junta or fijar_posicion, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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