sim_range_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the drive direction, the 0.9 blocked threshold with its three possible causes, and what reset does to joint state. It stops short of saying what state the robot is left in after the test or what effort/permissions the daemon needs.

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?

Four short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by interpretation, then configuration caveats. Dense but every sentence carries information; 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 format need not be spelled out, and the description still explains how to read the reported fraction. The main gaps are the unexplained `steps` parameter and the absence of any statement about the robot's post-test state, which matters for a tool that physically drives 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `target` (drive toward it) and `reset` (re-home and verify first), but `steps` is never mentioned, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: driving every driven joint from its lower limit toward `target` and reporting the fraction reached. This is a distinctive diagnostic action that an agent can separate from sim_inspect_joints or sim_set_targets, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete operating conditions: reset=True first re-homes and verifies joints, and the daemon must be started with ground=False if the robot can reach the floor, otherwise the test measures the floor instead of joint range. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over sim_sweep or sim_inspect_joints.

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