mujoco_get_wrench

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing world-axis units, torque origin, the sum-of-magnitudes behavior that prevents cancellation, and the distinction between noisy observed force and unchanged raw force/guard.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by only high-value behavioral details. Every sentence contributes either scope, units, axis conventions, or noise behavior, with no redundant repetition of the title or annotations.

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 read-only measurement tool, the description covers scope, units, coordinate frames, torque reference point, sum semantics, and noise behavior. The output schema exists and can carry return-value field details, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to body_name: the requested body must be non-world, and torque is about its origin. However, session_id is left entirely implicit, so one of the two required parameters still lacks explicit semantic coverage.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Measure ALL external contacts on a non-world body and its descendants.' It clearly defines the scope of the measurement and explicitly contrasts itself with a general wrist F/T sensor, making it easy to distinguish from sibling state and model tools.

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 gives clear usage context: use it to measure external contact wrenches, and explicitly warns that it is contact-only, not a general wrist F/T sensor. It does not name alternative sibling tools for the 'when not to use' case, so it stops just short of fully explicit routing.

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