sim_get_stats

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that values are accumulated 'since the last reset,' which is critical behavioral context for interpreting the stats. It does not mention reset behavior itself or return format, but the output schema likely covers the latter.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in one efficient sentence. The second paragraph is somewhat tangential—useful as a domain hint but not strictly necessary for invocation; still, it's brief.

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?

Given no parameters, a rich output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential scope ('since the last reset') and domain context for interpretation. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit routing to sibling tools.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids discussing nonexistent parameters.

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?

Clearly states the resource (per-joint travel and driven-joint mean tracking error) and the scope (since last reset), which distinguishes it from siblings like sim_get_joint_state by returning accumulated statistics rather than instantaneous state. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sim_status or sim_inspect_joints.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sim_get_joint_state, sim_status, or others. The second paragraph explains a concept (travel on a passive joint) but offers no operational context or exclusions.

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