get_robot_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the trailing 'Read-only.' is largely redundant. The useful additions are frame/unit details and the implied nature of the read (a live snapshot rather than a cached or historical value), though freshness, latency, and behavior when the controller is unreachable are not disclosed.

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 compact sentence-pair that front-loads the most important quantity and packs units and frames inline without padding. The closing 'Read-only.' repeats the annotations and is the one expendable phrase.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need only orient the agent, and the enumeration of joints, pose, wrench, gripper and safety does that well, including units and reference frame. A note on sampling time or staleness would close the remaining gap for a state-read 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter explanation is possible or needed.

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 enumerates exactly what state is returned (joint positions with units, TCP pose with frame and quaternion order, wrench, gripper, safety) so the resource is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like get_motion_status or get_safety_status, which is the only thing keeping it below a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_motion_status, get_safety_status, or get_safety_envelope, all of which plausibly surface overlapping information. The agent must infer usage purely from the field list.

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