sim_inspect_joints

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden, and it discloses the critical trait that results come from the file rather than the live scene and default to the loaded USD. It does not cover error behavior or the usd format, but the key data-source caveat is clearly surfaced.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, and every clause (loop closures, file-vs-live, default) earns its place. Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and for a single-optional-parameter read tool the description covers scope, source, and default. Only the usd parameter format is left unspecified.

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 single usd parameter has 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate; it only explains the default ('loaded USD') and gives no hint of expected format (path, name, prim). Partial compensation over an otherwise undocumented parameter.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus precise resources: articulation DOFs, loop-closure joints, and roots. The 'Reads the file, not the live scene' clause distinguishes it from the live-state sibling sim_get_joint_state, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 file-vs-live-scene note implies when this tool is appropriate (inspecting saved GUI edits) but never explicitly states when to use it instead of sim_get_joint_state or names that alternative. Usage must be inferred rather than read.

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