sim_get_joint_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read ('get') and lists the returned quantities, but says nothing about side effects, whether it blocks until a simulation step, or whether it requires a running/paused sim — and much of what it does say overlaps with the output schema.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary return values (positions, velocities) and appends the secondary driven-joint data. No wasted words.

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 not explain return values, and for a zero-argument getter this is largely sufficient. The one real gap is absence of any routing hint versus sim_inspect_joints.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a global, unfiltered read of all joint state with no arguments 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 names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what state is returned: joint positions in rad/m, velocities, and driven joints' normalized positions and limits. It is clear what the tool yields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling sim_inspect_joints, leaving the reader unsure which to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related sim_inspect_joints or sim_get_stats siblings. The description only describes the payload, so the agent must infer call context on its own.

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